• Application 11734-2017
  •  Admitted 1987
  • Hearing 1 February 2018
  • Reasons 13 February 2018

The SDT ordered that the respondent should be struck off the roll.

The matter was dealt with by way of the agreed outcome procedure.

By failing to apply for a statutory will on behalf of GH, causing her to die intestate without leaving provision for her two sons who lived in care, the respondent had breached or failed to achieve principles 4, 5 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011 and outcome 1.2 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011.

By making misleading and untrue statements to RH and others, in respect of the purported administration of the estate of the late GH, he had breached principles 2, 4, 5 and 6. He had acted dishonestly.

By fabricating a grant of probate in respect of GH’s estate he had breached principles 2, 4, 5 and 6. He had acted dishonestly.

By sending a copy of the fabricated grant of probate to the late GH’s son, which he knew or ought to have known would mislead RH that a grant of probate had been properly obtained, he had breached principles 2, 4, 5 and 6. He had acted dishonestly.

By misleading his employer as to the progress in the administration of the GH’s estate he had breached principles 2 and 6. He had acted dishonestly.

Dishonesty had been admitted in respect of four allegations; the misconduct had continued over a period of time from August 2013 until January 2017 when the respondent had admitted what he had done following the firm receiving a complaint.

He accepted that as a consequence he had to leave the profession he loved. He had offered an explanation for his conduct but recognised that it did not constitute exceptional circumstances. Striking off was a proportionate sanction and the only appropriate one in the circumstances. The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £3,000.