Frederick Brian Broadbridge and Stephen Peter Grimes

  • Application 11387-2015
  • Hearing 4-6 April 2017
  • Reasons 23 May 2017

The SDT ordered that the first respondent (admitted 1980) and the second respondent (admitted 1985) should each pay a fine of £35,000; and that neither respondent might practise as a sole practitioner or sole manager or sole owner of an authorised or recognised body; be a partner or member of a limited liability partnership, legal disciplinary practice or alternative business structure or other authorised or recognised body; or be a compliance officer for legal practice or a compliance officer for finance and administration; with liberty to either party to apply to vary those conditions.

The first and second respondents had breached rules 14.1, 20.6 and 20.9 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011 and rules 15(1) and 22(1)(a) of the Solicitors Accounts Rules 1998.

They had breached rules 29.12, 7.1 and 7.2 of the 2011 rules and rules 32(7), 7(1) and 7(2) of the 1998 rules.

They had breached rules 14.3 and 14.4 of the 2011 rules; principles 4 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2011; rule 15(3) and 15(4) of the 1998 rules, and rules 1.04 and 1.05 of the Solicitors Code of Conduct 2007.

They had breached principle 10 and, in so doing, had failed to achieve outcome 7.2 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011.

The first respondent, in his capacity as the compliance officer for legal practice and compliance officer for finance and administration for the firm, had breached rule 8.5 of the SRA Authorisation Rules 2011 and principle 7.

The first and second respondents had breached rules 7, 29.12, 20.6, 14.1 and 29.25 of the 2011 rules.

They had acted contrary to rule 17.7 of the 2011 rules and principles 4, 6 and 10.

They had breached rules 14.3 and 14.4 of the 2011 rules and principles 4, 6 and 10.

They had breached principle 7 and failed to achieve outcomes 10.3 and 10.4 of the 2011 code; and had breached rule 14.5 of the 2011 rules and principle 2.

The second respondent had breached regulations 5, 7 and 8 of the Money Laundering Regulations 2007; and had breached principles 1, 2, 6, 8 and 10.

Both respondents were unsuitable to manage a firm: the protection of the public could be achieved by the imposition of restrictions on their future practice. They would each also be fined.

The respondents were ordered to pay costs of £48,655, on the basis of joint and several liability.