• Application 11512-2016
• Admitted 1999
• Hearing 21 October 2016
• Reasons 10 November 2016
The SDT ordered that the respondent should be struck off the roll.
By virtue of his convictions in the Crown court, the respondent had failed to uphold the rule of law and the proper administration of justice, contrary to principle 1 of the SRA Principles 2011; act with integrity, contrary to principle 2; and behave in a way that maintained the trust the public placed in him and in the provision of legal services, contrary to principle 6.
The respondent had pleaded guilty to six counts of fraud by abuse of position, three counts of dishonestly making false representation to make gain for self/another or cause loss to other/expose other to risk, one count of false accounting, and one count of making false representation to creditors of a company being wound up so as to obtain their consent to agreement.
The respondent had created fictitious invoices and had then issued court proceedings against clients to recover the amounts due under them. He had benefited from defrauding clients of a large amount of money and that had resulted in criminal convictions. The money had been used to fund the respondent’s business and for his own personal purposes.
The respondent had made no admissions in the criminal proceedings until a relatively late stage, instead seeking to blame the accounting system.
The only appropriate sanction in the present case, in order to protect the public and the reputation of the profession, was to strike the respondent’s name from the roll.
The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £2,000.