Stephen Andrew Alexander and Spicketts Battrick Law Practice

  • Application 11635
  • Hearing 6 September 2017
  • Reasons 20 September 2017

The SDT ordered that the first respondent (admitted 1992) should pay a fine of £15,001, and further that he might not practise other than in employment which had first been approved by the SRA; and that the second respondent (a partnership authorised to practise as a recognised body by the SRA since 2006), should pay a fine of £20,000.

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

By disclosing the address of a property being purchased by SH, a client of the second respondent’s conveyancing department and former wife of his client VM, to VM, despite SH’ s specific instructions to the contrary, the first respondent had breached or failed to achieve principles 4 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011 and outcomes 4.1 and 4.3 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011.

By acting for SH in respect of a conveyancing matter, while also acting for her former husband VM in respect of child contact and divorce proceedings without ensuring that sufficient barriers had been put in place to protect SH’s confidential information, resulting in that confidential information being disclosed to VM, the second respondent had breached or failed to achieve principles 4, 5, 6 and 8 and outcomes 3.5, 4.1 and 4.5.

The SDT was satisfied that the proposed sanctions were appropriate and proportionate given the seriousness of the admitted misconduct. It therefore granted the application to resolve the matter by way of an agreed outcome.

The first and second respondents were ordered to pay costs of £7,000 on the basis of joint and several liability.