- Application 11527-2016
- Admitted 1984
- Hearings 11-12 January and 19 April 2017
- Reasons 5 June 2017
The SDT ordered that the respondent should be struck off the roll.
Contrary to principles 2, 4 and 6 of the SRA Principles, the respondent had breached section 1.12 of the Council of Mortgage Lenders Handbook; rule 1 of the SRA Practice Framework Rules; and had misled lenders. In so doing, he had acted dishonestly.
The respondent had breached rules 14.3 and 14.5 of the Solicitors Accounts Rules 2011 and principle 8.
Between 9 December 2013 and 17 June 2014, and between 23 January 2014 and 25 April 2015, the respondent had breached principles 2, 4 and 6.
The respondent had breached rule 3 and outcomes 3.6 and 3.7 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011 in the period November 2012 to September 2013.
The respondent had breached rule 27.2 of the 2011 rules.
The respondent had breached rule 20.1 of the 2011 rules in the period July 2013 to September 2013.
The respondent had not demonstrated genuine insight and his misconduct, which included a finding of dishonesty, was at the higher level. His conduct exhibited a complete disregard of his obligations as a solicitor and the rules that were in place to protect the public.
There were no exceptional circumstances in the case. The respondent had previously been struck off the roll and had already been given a second opportunity when he was restored to the roll in 2004. The appropriate sanction to maintain the public’s confidence in the profession, as well as to protect the public, was to strike the respondent off the roll.
The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £65,977.