Stephen Michael Tobin

  • Application 11604-2017
  • Admitted 1971
  • Hearing 27 April 2017
  • Reasons 13 June 2017

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

The matter was dealt with by the agreed outcome procedure.

By deliberately backdating and signing an enduring power of attorney in the client matter of Mrs EH, the respondent had acted in breach of principles 1, 2, 4 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011. In so doing, he had acted dishonestly.

By doing nothing or taking inadequate steps to assess Mrs EH’s mental capacity and verify her instructions prior to creating the EPA, he had acted in breach of principles 3, 4 and 5.

By deliberately backdating and signing an EPA in the client matter of Mr MB, he had acted in breach of principles 1, 2, 4 and 6. In so doing, he had acted dishonestly.

By taking inadequate steps to assess Mr MB’s mental capacity prior to creating the EPA, he had acted in breach of principles 4 and 5.

By deliberately backdating and signing an EPA in the client matter of Mr AG, he had acted in breach of rules 1.01, 1.02, 1.04 and 1.06 of the Solicitors Code of Conduct 2007. In so doing, he had acted dishonestly.

By doing nothing or taking inadequate steps to assess Mr AG’s mental capacity prior to creating the EPA, he had acted in breach of rules 1.04 and 1.05 of the code.

By failing to return client monies in the sum of £15,110 held for Mr TK, he had, from April 2009 to 5 October 2011, breached rule 15.3 of the Solicitors Accounts Rules 1998; and from 6 October 2014 to May 2015, breached rule 14.3 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011.

By withdrawing client money in the sum of £2,584.83 held for the client Mr TK to pay an outstanding stamp duty land tax liability for Mr GS, he had breached rules 1.2(c) and 20.1 of the 2011 rules, and principle 2.

The proposed sanction of striking the respondent off the roll was both reasonable and proportionate. It would not only reflect the seriousness of the misconduct, protect the public and the reputation of the profession, but would also maintain public confidence in the profession.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £10,000.