- Application 11558-2016
- Hearing 17 May 2017
- Reasons 6 June 2017
The SDT ordered that as from 17 May 2017 except in accordance with the permission of the Solicitors Regulation Authority: (i) no solicitor should employ or remunerate the respondent in connection with his practice as a solicitor; (ii) no employee of a solicitor should employ or remunerate the respondent in connection with the solicitor’s practice; (iii) no recognised body should employ or remunerate the respondent; (iv) no manager or employee of a recognised body should employ or remunerate the respondent in connection with the business of that body; (v) no recognised body or manager or employee of such a body should permit the respondent to be a manager of the body; and (vi) no recognised body or manager or employee of such a body should permit the respondent to have an interest in the body.
The respondent, who was not a solicitor, had been guilty of conduct of such a nature that in the opinion of the SRA it would be undesirable for him to be employed by a solicitor in connection with his or her practice as a solicitor, in that he had breached principles 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011.
The respondent had intimated and pursued personal injury claims in circumstances where the purported client(s); (a) had not returned signed client retainers, signed conditional fee agreements or any other written confirmation of instructions stating they wished the firm to act on their behalf; and/or (b) had notified the firm they did not wish to pursue a personal injury claim.
The respondent had made representations to third-party insurers which were inaccurate and misleading.
The respondent acknowledged that the procedures he was following were a departure from normal practice. He might have lacked formal training and not been adequately supervised but he clearly knew the difference between what was ethical and what was not, and even if he did not, that would be equally troubling.
It would be undesirable for him to be employed by a solicitor in connection with his or her practice as a solicitor without the permission of the SRA.
The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £2,000.