• Application 11416-2015

• Admitted 1999

• Hearing 20, 21 November 2017

• Reasons 5 December 2017

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

The respondent had dishonestly withdrawn client money from a client account to pay a personal debt in breach of rule 20.l(a) of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011.

By dishonestly using a client’s money to pay a debt for which he was personally liable he had breached principles 2, 4, 6 and 10 of the SRA Principles 2011.

He had improperly signed the certificate in part B of two lasting powers of attorney which appointed him as an attorney, in breach of principles 4, 5, 6 and 10, and had failed to achieve outcomes O(1.2) and O(1.5) of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011.

He had failed to fulfil his role as attorney and had thereby breached principles 2, 4, 5, 6 and 10, and failed to achieve outcomes O(1.2), O(1.5) and O( 4.1), and had acted dishonestly.

He had acted in such a way as to give rise to claims or potential claims against him by his client, but had failed to notify her, breaching principles 2, 4, and 6 and failing to achieve outcome O(1.16).

He had failed to provide the Office of the Public Guardian with information, in breach of principles 2, 4, 6 and 7, and had acted dishonestly.

He had failed to provide the applicant with information requested, in breach of principles 2, 6 and 7, had failed to achieve outcome O(10.6), and had acted dishonestly.

He had failed to create and maintain proper documentary records of his conduct in respect of his client’s affairs in breach of principles 4, 5, 8 and 10.

He had posted a bill to her client ledger without a bill of costs or other written notification in breach of rules 17.2 and 20.1 of the rules.

He had dishonestly failed to inform the applicant about the existence of an account at NatWest Bank and to provide the bank statements in respect of that account, thereby breaching rules 10, 30.1 and 31.1 of the rules, principles 2, 6 and 7, and failing to achieve outcome O(10.6).

While appointed as attorney and a signatory on the NatWest account, he had failed to act in his client’s best interests in breach of principles 2, 4, 5, 6 and 10, and had acted dishonestly.

While appointed as attorney, in connection with a deed of variation, he had acted in breach of principles 2, 4, 5, 6 and 10, and had acted dishonestly.

He had dishonestly charged his client for professional services allegedly carried out by his firm, in breach of principles 2, 4, 5, 6 and 10.

While appointed as attorney, he had dishonestly discharged invoices which he knew the firm had no entitlement to be paid for in breach of principles 2, 4, 5, 6 and 10.

He had dishonestly fabricated the purported care records in respect of the client in breach of principles 2, 4, 5, 6 and 10.

He had failed to respond to letters and requests for information from the applicant in breach of principles 2, 6, and 7 and had failed to achieve outcome O(10.6).

The respondent had continually and unremittingly taken advantage of his elderly and extremely vulnerable client. His conduct was one of the most deplorable cases of dishonest conduct involving the outrageous plundering of his client’s assets.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £70,000.