Paul Michael Dalowsky and Andrew Philip Walker

  • Application 11588-2016
  • Hearing 17 May 2017
  • Reasons 26 May 2017

The SDT ordered that the first respondent (admitted 2003) should pay a fine of £5,000; and that the second respondent (admitted 1979) should pay a fine of £7,000.

From 17 March 2015 onwards, the first and second respondents had acted for former probate clients of G & Co LLP, and also for CR, a former member of G & Co LLP, in circumstances where there was a client conflict, or a significant risk of a client conflict, and each had therefore breached or failed to achieve principles 4 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011 and outcomes 3.5 and 4.4 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011.

The second respondent had, from 17 March 2015 onwards, by failing to advise his clients as to remedies available to them, breached only principles 4 and 6.

The parties had invited the SDT to deal with the allegations against the respondents in accordance with a statement of agreed facts and indicated outcome.

The SDT was satisfied that the respondents’ admissions had been properly made and that the appropriate sanction in all the circumstances was a fine. It was further satisfied that the appropriate band of fine was level 2. However, it was not satisfied that the proposed level of fines within that band were sufficient to reflect the seriousness of the respondents’ misconduct. The appropriate level of fine was £5,000 in respect of the first respondent and £7,000 in respect of the second respondent.

The respondents were ordered to pay costs of £16,000, to be paid on the basis of joint and several liability.