Peter Charles Davies

  • Application 11612-2017
  • Admitted 1995
  • Hearing 30 June 2017
  • Reasons 15 August 2017

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

The respondent had received cash from clients in respect of bills of costs totalling £380, for which he had failed to account to his firm and had misappropriated, in breach of principles 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011, and had acted dishonestly.

He had improperly paid £5,000 from the estate of one client to the personal bank account of another client, and had thereafter misappropriated £5,000 from that client’s bank account for his own use in breach of principles 2 and 6, and had acted dishonestly.

He had improperly paid £1,072 for a bill for one client from money belonging to another client, in breach of principles 2 and 6, and had acted dishonestly.

He had improperly paid £6,439 out of the estate of one client to the personal bank account of another client who was not entitled to it and had thereafter misappropriated £5,950 from that bank account for his own use, in breach of principles 2 and 6, and had acted dishonestly.

He had improperly made payments of £50,000 and £20,000 from the estate of a client to third parties who were not entitled to the payments in breach of principles 2 and 6, and had acted dishonestly.

He had misappropriated £37,150 from the estate of one client and paid it to the personal bank account of another client who was not entitled to the payments, in breach of principles 2 and 6, and had acted dishonestly.

He had misappropriated approximately £223,499 from personal bank accounts belonging to a client for whom he held a power of attorney for his own personal use, in breach of principles 2 and 6, and rules 1.02 and 1.06 of the Solicitors Code of Conduct 2007, and had acted dishonestly.

He had misappropriated approximately £20,000 from the estate of a client for his own use in breach of principles 2 and 6, and had acted dishonestly.

He had fraudulently created two wills in which he named third parties as beneficiaries when they were not true beneficiaries of the estates, in breach of principles 2 and 6, and had acted dishonestly.

The respondent had acted dishonestly on nine occasions. His conduct had been deliberate, calculated and repeated over five years.

The only mitigating factors that could be identified were that he had made open and frank admissions at an early stage and he had cooperated with the investigating body. He also had a previously unblemished record.

There were no exceptional circumstances. The appropriate sanction was to remove his ability to practise as a solicitor permanently.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £17,000.