779 reviews and information for A & N Care Solicitors Limited, Doncaster

Home > UK Solicitor > Doncaster > A & N Care Solicitors Limited

How to find us

Gresley House, Ten Pound Walk, Doncaster, South Yorkshire, DN4 5HX

Other branches



Are you this solicitor?    
Contact us to take control of your listing or to request any edits to your information

All content on solicitor.info is viewed and used at your own risk and we do not warrant the accuracy or reliability of any of the information.


Reviews

Add review

Summary

5 stars   0
4 stars   0
3 stars   0
2 stars   0
1 stars   0

Legal services at this branch



      Add review

      Filter Reviews

       


      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      28/11/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/135867.article?Decision=2018-11-28

      Outcome: Condition
      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.
      Decision details

      Mr Carl Chapman is subject to Regulations 3 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011.

      Mr Chapman?s practising certificate for 2018/2019 has been granted subject to the following conditions:

      Mr Chapman is not a sole practitioner or a sole manager or sole owner of an authorised body.
      Mr Chapman is not the sole signatory to any client or office account and does not have sole responsibility for the client or office account or sole responsibility for authorising client or office account transfers.
      Mr Chapman shall not act as Head of Legal Practice (HOLP)/ a Compliance Officer for Legal Practice (COLP) or a Head of Finance and Administration (HOFA)/ a Compliance Officer for Finance and Administration (COFA).

      In these conditions the definitions are as defined in the SRA Handbook Glossary 2012.

      Reasons/basis

      The above conditions are necessary in the public interest and reasonable and proportionate having regard to the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 and the regulatory objectives and principles governing regulatory activities as contained in section 28 of the Legal Services Act 2007.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      13/11/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/311564.article?Decision=2018-11-13

      Outcome: Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal order
      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.
      Reasons/basis

      Before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal on Tuesday 13 November 2018. An application from Andrew Adeniyi Abereoje to remove 3 restrictions which were placed on his practice as a solicitor at the conclusion of a hearing which took place at the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal on 21 November 2013, those being:

      1.1 That he may practise as an employee in a practice having no less than 5 partners, members, directors and/or shareholders in any such practice;

      1.2 That he may be employed as an in-house solicitor;

      1.3 That he may not be employed as either a Compliance Officer for a Legal Practice or as a Compliance Officer for Finance and Administration.

      Having heard from the parties, the Tribunal agreed with the recommendation of the SRA, that the protection of the public and the reputation of the profession would still be served if restrictions 1 and 2 were removed, and therefore made an Order in the following terms:

      1. The Tribunal varies the Order dated 21 November 2013 as follows:

      1.1 The Tribunal Orders that conditions 1.1 and 1.2 be removed.

      1.2 The Tribunal Orders that condition 1.3, that the Applicant may not be employed as either a Compliance Officer for a Legal Practice or a Compliance Officer for Finance and Administration, shall remain in effect.

      2. There be liberty to either party to apply to the Tribunal to vary the condition at 1.2 above.

      The SDT judgment will be available at www.solicitorstribunal.org.uk

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      18/10/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/150706.article?Decision=2018-10-18

      Outcome: Intervention
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      Decision to intervene into the practice of Mr Harry Cottam at Cottams Solicitors Ltd.

      ?



      Reasons/basis



      The Panel was satisfied that grounds for intervention existed under paragraph 1(1)(a)(i) Schedule 1 ? Part I Solicitors Act 1974, namely that there is reason to suspect dishonesty by Mr Cottam in connection with his practice as a solicitor.

      The Panel was satisfied that grounds for intervention existed under paragraph 1(1)(c) Schedule 1? Part I Solicitors Act 1974 namely that, Mr Cottam has failed to comply with rules.



      Intervening agents

      Marion Vesey of

      Shacklocks LLP,

      St Peter's House, Bridge Street, Mansfield, NG18 1AL has been appointed as the intervening agent.



      For enquiries please

      call

      01623 423073 or email

      interventioncottams@shacklocks.co.uk.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      18/10/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/492840.article?Decision=2018-10-18

      Outcome: Intervention
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      Decision to intervene into Cottams Solicitors Ltd.

      ?



      Reasons/basis





      The Panel was satisfied that grounds for intervention existed under paragraph 32(1)(d)(i) Schedule 2 Administration of Justice Act 1985 namely that there is reason to suspect dishonesty by Mr Harry Cottam (a manager) in connection with the firm?s business.

      The Panel was satisfied that grounds for intervention existed under Paragraph 32(1)(a) Schedule 2 Administration of Justice Act 1985 namely that Mr Cottam as manager of the firm and the firm itself, have failed to comply with the rules applicable to them.





      Intervening agents

      Marion Vesey of

      Shacklocks LLP,

      St Peter's House, Bridge Street, Mansfield, NG18 1AL has been appointed as the intervening agent.



      For enquiries please

      call

      01623 423073 or email

      interventioncottams@shacklocks.co.uk.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      16/10/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/98848.article?Decision=2018-10-16

      Outcome: Intervention
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      to intervene into the practice of Richard Stephen Davies practising as Richard Stephen Davies.

      ?



      Reasons/basis



      there is reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of Richard Stephen Davies in connection with his practice as a solicitor (Solicitors Act 1974, Schedule1, Part I, paragraph 1(1)(a)(i); and

      Mr Davies has failed to comply with the SRA Principles 2011 and SRA Accounts Rules 2011 (Solicitors Act 1974, Schedule 1, Part I, paragraph 1(1)(c).



      Intervening agents

      Neal Boland of

      Stephensons ,

      Wigan Investment Centre, Waterside Drive, Wigan, WN3 5BA has been appointed as the intervening agent.



      For enquiries please

      call

      0333 344 4776 or email

      sraenquiries@stephensons.co.uk.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      16/10/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/070830.article?Decision=2018-10-16

      Outcome: Regulatory settlement agreement
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      Bonell & Co (the Firm), a recognised body, agrees to the following outcome to the investigation of its conduct by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA):



      it is rebuked

      it is fined ?2,000

      to the publication of this agreement

      it will pay the costs of the investigation of ?600.





      Reasons/basis



      Summary of Facts

      On 5 August 2016 the Firm reported to the SRA that it had materially breached the SRA Accounts Rules 2011 (the Accounts Rules). On 19 October 2016 the Firm submitted a qualified Accountant?s report to the SRA for the period 1 May 2015 to 30 April 2016. The report identified several breaches of the Accounts Rules. The SRA investigated the issues reported.

      The investigation identified a client account shortage in the sum of ?14,474.68 as at 31 January 2017.

      The shortage was caused because, on 58 client matters, the Firm paid out more money than it was holding for the client. The amount of the over-payment ranged from ?0.01 to ?6,000. In several of the matters, the over-payments had been made over two years ago.

      The Firm did not identify the over-payments promptly because it did not carry out regular three-way client bank account reconciliations or properly inspect those reconciliations that were prepared.

      The shortage was rectified in February 2017.

      The Firm has since reviewed and amended its processes to address the deficiencies which allowed the over-payments to occur and go undetected for an extended period of time.

      Admissions

      The Firm make the following admissions which the SRA accepts:



      that it breached Rule 20.6 of the Accounts Rules because, in connection with 58 client matters, it withdrew more money from its client account than it was holding for each of those clients.

      that it breached Rule 29.12 of the Accounts Rules because it prepared client account reconciliations less frequently than once every five weeks.

      that it breached Rule 7 of the Accounts Rules because, although it became aware that it had a deficient client account in August 2016, it did not replace missing money until February 2017.

      that by virtue of the breaches listed above and by failing to properly inspect the reconciliation statements prepared it breached Principle 10 of the SRA Principles 2011 and Rule 1.2(e) of the Accounts Rules.



      Why the agreed outcome is appropriate

      The SRA considers that the agreed outcome is appropriate because the conditions in rule 3.1 of the SRA Disciplinary Rules 2011 are met, in that:



      the conduct related to a failure to comply with the Firm?s regulatory obligations and continued for an unreasonable period of time

      the agreed outcome is a proportionate outcome in the public interest

      the conduct was neither trivial nor justifiably inadvertent.



      In deciding that the agreed outcome is proportionate, the SRA has taken into account the admissions made by the Firm and the following mitigation which it has put forward:



      that the procedures which led to the breaches were partly due to the accounting system it operated at the time and which allowed incorrect ledger entries to be simply overridden by a member of staff who is no longer with the Firm. The Firm has now introduced a new accounting system to prevent similar issues occurring again.

      that the Firm has remedied the issues identified.

      that the Firm reported the matter to the SRA and co-operated with the SRA?s investigation.

      The amount of the fine takes into account all relevant circumstances, including those set out in Appendix 1 to the SRA Disciplinary Procedure Rules 2011.



      The SRA considers it appropriate that this agreement is published in the interests of transparency in the regulatory and disciplinary process.

      Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this Agreement

      The Firm agrees that it will not act in any way which is inconsistent with this agreement such as, for example, by denying the admissions made in this agreement.

      If the Firm acts in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement, the conduct which is subject to this agreement may be considered further by the SRA. That may result in a disciplinary outcome or a referral to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal on the original facts and allegations. Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement may also constitute a separate breach of Principles 2, 6 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2011.

      Costs

      The Firm agrees to pay the costs of the SRA's investigation in the sum of ?600. Such costs are due within 28 days of a statement of costs due being issued by the SRA.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      08/10/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/472912.article?Decision=2018-10-08

      Outcome: Intervention
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details

      The Adjudication Panel decided to intervene into the practice of Shah London Ltd formerly Shah Solicitors Ltd.

      Reasons/basis



      The Adjudication Panel is satisfied that it is necessary to intervene to protect the interests of clients and former clients of the firm (paragraph 32(1)(e) of Schedule 2 to the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (as amended)).

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      04/10/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/153528.article?Decision=2018-10-04

      Outcome: Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal order
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis

      Outcome of SDT Hearing

      This notification relates to a Decision to prosecute before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. This is an independent Tribunal which reaches its own decision after considering all the evidence, including any evidence put forward by the Respondent. The Tribunal had certified that there was a case to answer.

      The matter was heard on 4 October 2018.

      The Tribunal approved an Agreed Outcome.

      Ms Walton-Knowles was fined ?15,000.

      The SDT judgment will be available at www.solicitorstribunal.org.uk

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      04/10/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/152809.article?Decision=2018-10-04

      Outcome: PC/registration free of conditions
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      Andrew Wylde's practising certificate for 2018-2019 has been granted free from conditions.

      ?



      Reasons/basis

      The SRA is satisfied that none of the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 or the regulatory objectives

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      24/09/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/564264.article?Decision=2018-09-24

      Outcome: Control of non-qualified staff (section 43 order)
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      ORDER FOR PUBLICATION

      In the matter of:

      Neil Ross, a person who is or was involved in legal practice but is not a solicitor, is now subject to section 43 of the Solicitors Act 1974.

      The Facts:

      Mr Ross is a Charted Legal Executive. Between December 1979 and April 2017, he was employed by Glaisyers LLP as the head of the business crime department.

      In 2015 he became a council member for an offshore trust. While a council member he approved financial arrangements without seeing any account or trust documentation. He was dismissed from his employment in 2017. He is currently not in legal employment.

      FINDING

      I find that Neil Ross is or was involved in a legal practice (as defined by section 43 (1A) of the Solicitors Act 1974) but is not a solicitor and has occasioned or been a party to, with or without the connivance of a solicitor, an act or default in relation to a legal practice which involved conduct on his part of such a nature that in the opinion of the Society it would be undesirable for him to be involved in a legal practice in any of the ways set out in the order below.

      ORDER

      To make a section 43 order that with effect from the date of the letter or email notifying Neil Ross of this decision:



      no solicitor shall employ or remunerate him in connection with his/her practice as a solicitor;

      no employee of a solicitor shall employ or remunerate him in connection with the solicitor?s practice;

      no recognised body shall employ or remunerate him;

      no manager or employee of a recognised body shall employ or remunerate him in connection with the business of that body;

      no recognised body or manager or employee of such a body shall permit him to be a manager of the body; and

      no recognised body or manager or employee of such a body shall permit him to have an interest in the body



      except in accordance with a Society permission.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      24/09/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/328588.article?Decision=2018-09-24

      Outcome: Intervention
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      Decision to intervene into the Broadbridge Grimes Solicitors.

      ?



      Reasons/basis





      The Panel was satisfied that grounds for intervention existed under paragraph 32(1)(a) of Schedule 2 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985, namely the managers at Broadbridge Grimes Solicitors had failed to comply with the SRA Accounts Rules 2011, the SRA Principles 2011 and the SRA Code of conduct 2011.

      The Panel was satisfied that grounds for intervention existed under paragraph 32(1)(e) of Schedule 2 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985, namely that it was necessary to intervene to protect the interests of clients and former clients of the firm





      Intervening agents

      Nigel Coates of

      Russell-Cooke LLP,

      2 Putney Hill, London, SW15 6AB has been appointed as the intervening agent.



      For enquiries please

      call

      0208 394 6400 or email

      FIID@russell-cooke.co.uk .

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      20/09/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/626983.article?Decision=2018-09-20

      Outcome: Intervention
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      To intervene into the firm of Furse Sanders Limited (in Liquidation).

      ?



      Reasons/basis





      There has been a relevant insolvency event in relation to Furse Sanders Limited (paragraph 32 (1)(c) Schedule 2, Administration of Justice Act 1985);

      it is necessary to intervene into the firm to protect the interests of clients or former clients (paragraph 32(1)( e)(i) Schedule 2 Administration of Justice Act 1985).

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      19/09/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/97230.article?Decision=2018-09-19

      Outcome: Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal order
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis

      Outcome of SDT Hearing

      This notification relates to a Decision to prosecute before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. This is an independent Tribunal which reaches its own decision after considering all the evidence, including any evidence put forward by the Respondent. The Tribunal had certified that there was a case to answer.

      On the 19 September 2018 the SDT pursuant to an agreed outcome struck Mr Rollin from the roll.

      The SDT judgment will be available at www.solicitorstribunal.org.uk

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      18/09/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/534427.article?Decision=2018-09-18

      Outcome: Regulatory settlement agreement
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      Regulatory Settlement Agreement

      ?



      Reasons/basis



      1. Agreed outcome

      1.1 Child & Child Limited, a recognised body, agrees to the following outcome to the investigation of its conduct by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA):



      it is rebuked

      it is fined ?2,000

      to the publication of this agreement

      it will pay the costs of the investigation of ?600.



      2. Summary of Facts

      2.1 The Firm was instructed by its client, Mrs A, in the sale of her property to Mr and Mrs B (the buyers). The property comprised both a headlease, a sublease and a share in the freehold. The price was approximately ?1 million.

      2.2 In preparation for completion, Mrs A attended the Firm?s office to sign the various transfer deeds. The matter completed in July 2011.

      2.3 Because of the nature of the transaction, the completion arrangements were unusual. However, the Firm undertook to provide a copy of each of the transfer deeds, properly executed by Mrs A, to the buyers? solicitor. Those in respect of the headlease and the share of the freehold were provided and the interests were transferred to the buyers without issue.

      2.4 In October 2011, the buyers? solicitor contacted the Firm to state that the transfer deed transferring the sublease to the buyers, received from the Firm in August, had not been executed by Mrs A.

      2.5 The Firm then attempted to obtain a properly executed transfer from Mrs A. Although she initially indicated that she would sign a further transfer deed, she did not do so. Mrs A?s stance then changed and by September 2012 she stated that she had not instructed the Firm to sell her property, only to re-finance it.

      2.6 There followed a protracted dispute between the Firm, Mrs A and the buyers. This was resolved in late 2016 when the Firm obtained a signed transfer deed from Mr A and provided it to the buyers. Mr and Mrs B were registered as owners of the sublease in February 2017.

      2.7 Mr and Mrs B incurred significant legal fees as a result of the Firm?s failure to comply with its undertaking, given on completion in 2011, to provide a properly executed transfer deed for the transfer of the sublease.

      3. Admissions

      3.1 The Firm admits, and the SRA accepts, that by failing to provide the buyers? solicitor with a properly executed transfer deed in respect of the sublease until late 2016, it breached its undertaking and therefore failed to comply with Rule 10.05 SRA Code of Conduct 2007 and Outcome 11.2 SRA Code of Conduct 2011.

      4. Why the agreed outcome is appropriate

      4.1 The SRA considers that the agreed outcome is appropriate because the conditions in rule 3.1 of the SRA Disciplinary Procedure Rules 2011 are met, in that:



      the conduct caused loss or significant inconvenience to Mr and Mrs B

      the agreed outcome is a proportionate outcome in the public interest

      the conduct was neither trivial nor justifiably inadvertent.



      4.2 In deciding that the agreed outcome is proportionate, the SRA has taken into account the admissions made by the Firm and the following mitigation which it has put forward:



      there is no pattern of this type of misconduct in relation to the Firm.

      there was no intention by the Firm to breach the undertaking and once it has completed the transaction it had no way to compel Mrs A to provide a signed copy of the transfer.

      the harm suffered by Mr and Mrs B is not something the Firm could have easily anticipated as a result of the misconduct. The Firm could not have expected Mrs A to act in the way she did.

      the Firm has accepted its failure from the outset of this matter, showing insight and an attempt at remedial action.



      4.3 The amount of the fine takes into account all relevant circumstances, including those set out in Appendix 1 to the SRA Disciplinary Procedure Rules 2011.

      4.4 The SRA considers it appropriate that this agreement is published in the interests of transparency in the regulatory and disciplinary process.

      5. Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this Agreement

      5.1 The Firm agrees that it will not act in any way which is inconsistent with this agreement such as, for example, by denying the admissions made in this agreement.

      5.2 If the Firm acts in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement, the conduct which is subject to this agreement may be considered further by the SRA. That may result in a disciplinary outcome or a referral to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal on the original facts and allegations. Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement may also constitute a separate breach of Principles 2, 6 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2011.

      6. Costs

      6.1 The Firm agrees to pay the costs of the SRA's investigation in the sum of ?600. Such costs are due within 28 days of a statement of costs due being issued by the SRA.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      12/09/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/361538.article?Decision=2018-09-12

      Outcome: Regulatory settlement agreement
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      1. Agreed outcome

      1.1 Mrs Jasbinder Digva a non-practising solicitor agrees to the following outcome to the investigation of her conduct by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA):



      she is rebuked

      she is fined ?1,000

      to the publication of this agreement

      she will pay the costs of the investigation of ?300.



      2. Summary of Facts

      2.1 On 17 February 2017, Mrs Digva drove home from a social event with her young daughter in the car. On her way home, the car was involved in a collision with another car at a junction. Mrs Digva tested positive for alcohol.

      2.2 On 24 April 2017, Mrs Digva was convicted at Nottingham Magistrates Court of driving with excess alcohol. The sentence was:







      disqualification from driving for a period of 24 months

      a fine of ?240.



      2.3 Mrs Digva was also ordered to pay:



      a victim surcharge of ?30

      costs of ?85.



      2.4 Mrs Digva did not report the conviction to the SRA.

      3. Admissions

      3.1 Mrs Digva makes the following admissions which the SRA accepts:



      that by her conduct and conviction for driving with excess alcohol, she behaved in a way that may diminish the trust the public places in her and the provision of legal services in breach of Principle 6 of the SRA Principles 2011.

      that by failing to report to the SRA that she had been convicted of driving with excess alcohol she:



      breached Principle 7 of the SRA Principles 2011 andfailed to achieve Outcomes 10.3 and 10.4 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011.



      ?



      4. Why the agreed outcome is appropriate

      4.1 The SRA considers that the agreed outcome is appropriate because the conditions in rule 3.1 of the SRA Disciplinary Rules 2011 are met, in that:



      the conduct was deliberate or reckless and affected or had the potential to affect a child

      the agreed outcome is a proportionate outcome in the public interest

      the conduct was neither trivial nor justifiably inadvertent.



      4.2 In deciding that the agreed outcome is proportionate, the SRA has taken into account the admissions made by Mrs Digva and that she was suffering from difficult personal circumstances at the time of the conduct which led to the conviction.

      4.3 The amount of the fine takes into account all relevant circumstances, including those set out in Appendix 1 to the SRA Disciplinary Procedure Rules 2011.

      4.4 The SRA considers it appropriate that this agreement is published in the interests of transparency in the regulatory and disciplinary process.

      5. Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this Agreement

      5.1 Mrs Digva agrees that she will not act in any way which is inconsistent with this agreement such as, for example, by denying the admissions made in this agreement.

      5.2 If Mrs Digva acts in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement, the conduct which is subject to this agreement may be considered further by the SRA. That may result in a disciplinary outcome or a referral to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal on the original facts and allegations. Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement may also constitute a separate breach of Principles 2, 6 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2011.

      6. Costs

      6.1 Mrs Digva agrees to pay the costs of the SRA's investigation in the sum of ?300. Such costs are due within 28 days of a statement of costs due being issued by the SRA.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      12/09/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/361538.article?Decision=2018-09-12

      Outcome: Regulatory settlement agreement
      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details
      1. Agreed outcome
      1.1 Mrs Jasbinder Digva a non-practising solicitor agrees to the following outcome to the investigation of her conduct by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA):

      she is rebuked
      she is fined ?1,000
      to the publication of this agreement
      she will pay the costs of the investigation of ?300.
      2. Summary of Facts
      2.1 On 17 February 2017, Mrs Digva drove home from a social event with her young daughter in the car. On her way home, the car was involved in a collision with another car at a junction. Mrs Digva tested positive for alcohol.

      2.2 On 24 April 2017, Mrs Digva was convicted at Nottingham Magistrates Court of driving with excess alcohol. The sentence was:

      disqualification from driving for a period of 24 months
      a fine of ?240.
      2.3 Mrs Digva was also ordered to pay:

      a victim surcharge of ?30
      costs of ?85.
      2.4 Mrs Digva did not report the conviction to the SRA.

      3. Admissions
      3.1 Mrs Digva makes the following admissions which the SRA accepts:

      that by her conduct and conviction for driving with excess alcohol, she behaved in a way that may diminish the trust the public places in her and the provision of legal services in breach of Principle 6 of the SRA Principles 2011.
      that by failing to report to the SRA that she had been convicted of driving with excess alcohol she:
      breached Principle 7 of the SRA Principles 2011 and
      failed to achieve Outcomes 10.3 and 10.4 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011.

      4. Why the agreed outcome is appropriate
      4.1 The SRA considers that the agreed outcome is appropriate because the conditions in rule 3.1 of the SRA Disciplinary Rules 2011 are met, in that:

      the conduct was deliberate or reckless and affected or had the potential to affect a child
      the agreed outcome is a proportionate outcome in the public interest
      the conduct was neither trivial nor justifiably inadvertent.
      4.2 In deciding that the agreed outcome is proportionate, the SRA has taken into account the admissions made by Mrs Digva and that she was suffering from difficult personal circumstances at the time of the conduct which led to the conviction.

      4.3 The amount of the fine takes into account all relevant circumstances, including those set out in Appendix 1 to the SRA Disciplinary Procedure Rules 2011.

      4.4 The SRA considers it appropriate that this agreement is published in the interests of transparency in the regulatory and disciplinary process.

      5. Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this Agreement
      5.1 Mrs Digva agrees that she will not act in any way which is inconsistent with this agreement such as, for example, by denying the admissions made in this agreement.

      5.2 If Mrs Digva acts in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement, the conduct which is subject to this agreement may be considered further by the SRA. That may result in a disciplinary outcome or a referral to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal on the original facts and allegations. Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement may also constitute a separate breach of Principles 2, 6 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2011.

      6. Costs
      6.1 Mrs Digva agrees to pay the costs of the SRA's investigation in the sum of ?300. Such costs are due within 28 days of a statement of costs due being issued by the SRA.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      06/09/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/482296.article?Decision=2018-09-06

      Outcome: Regulatory settlement agreement
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis

      SRA Reference: TRI/1163109-2016

      CEMILE KILINC-DOLLERY

      REGULATORY SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

      An RSA dated 6 September 2018 has been entered into by Cemile Kilinc-Dollery and the SRA, as a result of which Cemile Kilinc-Dollery has voluntarily removed herself from the Roll of Solicitors.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      05/09/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/442849.article?Decision=2018-09-05

      Outcome: Regulatory settlement agreement
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details

      Regulatory Settlement Agreement

      Reasons/basis



      1. Agreed outcome

      1.1 Frettens LLP (the Firm), a recognised body, agrees to the following outcome to the investigation of its conduct by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA):



      it is rebuked

      to the publication of this agreement

      it will pay the costs of the investigation of ?1,350.



      2. Summary of Facts

      2.1 From January 2012 the Firm undertook work in relation to a deputyship order for Mr A.

      2.2 In relation to costs and expenses, the deputyship order stated:

      "The deputy is entitled to receive fixed costs in

      relation to this application and to receive fixed

      costs for the general management of the

      affairs of Mr A. If the deputy would prefer the

      costs to be assessed, this order is to be

      treated as authority to the Supreme Court

      Costs Office to carry out a detailed

      assessment on the standard basis."

      2.3 The fixed annual costs that applied to the deputyship were as follows:

      For the first year ?1,500 (plus VAT) For the second and subsequent years ?1,185 (plus VAT).

      2.4 Mr A died in September 2015. From 2012 to 2015 the Firm took payment of costs from Mr A?s estate in excess of the fixed costs permitted under the deputyship order, without having those costs assessed by the Supreme Courts Costs Office (SCCO).

      2.5 After Mr A?s death the Firm had its costs assessed. The final costs certificate for the deputyship period:



      2014/2015 was issued on 29 September 2015,

      2012/2013 was issued on 7 October 2017,

      2013/2014 was issued on 4 November 2017.



      On 22 November 2017 the Firm refunded Mr A?s estate with ?2,957.94 in relation to costs billed over and above the amounts set out in the final costs certificates

      3. Admissions

      3.1 The Firm admits, and the SRA accepts, that it took costs from Mr A?s estate before having them assessed by the SCCO, in breach of the deputyship order. By acting in this way the Firm:



      failed to behave in a way that maintains the trust the public places in the Firm and in the provision of legal services in breach of Principle 6 of the SRA Principles 2011 and

      failed to protect client money and assets in breach of Principle 10 of the SRA Principles 2011.



      4. Why the agreed outcome is appropriate

      4.1 The SRA considers that the agreed outcome is appropriate because the conditions in rule 3.1 of the SRA Disciplinary Rules 2011 are met, in that the conduct was:



      deliberate or reckless and affected a vulnerable person,

      the agreed outcome is a proportionate outcome in the public interest,

      the conduct was neither trivial or justifiable inadvertent.



      4.2 The SRA considers it appropriate that this agreement is published in the interests of transparency in the regulatory and disciplinary process.

      5. Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this Agreement

      5.1 The Firm agrees that it will not act in any way which is inconsistent with this agreement such as, for example, by denying the admissions made in this agreement.

      5.2 If the Firm acts in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement, the conduct which is subject to this agreement may be considered further by the SRA. That may result in a disciplinary outcome or a referral to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal on the original facts and allegations. Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement may also constitute a separate breach of Principles 2, 6 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2011.

      6. Costs

      6.1 The Firm agrees to pay the costs of the SRA's investigation in the sum of ?1,350. Such costs are due within 28 days of a statement of costs due being issued by the SRA.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      05/09/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/645379.article?Decision=2018-09-05

      Outcome: Control of non-qualified staff (section 43 order)
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      IN THE MATTER OF Glyn Owen, a person who was involved in a legal practice but is not a solicitor

      The facts

      Glyn Owen was employed as an applications engineer from 3 October 2016 until 15 December 2017 at a firm authorised by the SRA.

      On 30 October 2017 he was convicted at Manchester Crown Court, of the offences of making indecent photographs of a child x 3; possessing indecent images of a child; and possessing extreme pornographic images.

      On 8 December 2017, he was sentenced to 6 months imprisonment suspended for 24 months. He was ordered to undertake 35 Rehabilitation Activity Requirement Days, and 60 hours unpaid work. He was made subject to a Sexual Harm Prevention Order for 5 years and must sign the Sex Offenders Register for 7 years.

      Mr Owen is currently not working.

      Finding

      I find that Mr Owen is or was involved in a legal practice (as defined by section 43 (1A) of the Solicitors Act 1974) but is not a solicitor and has been convicted of a criminal offence which is such that in the opinion of the Society it would be undesirable for him to be involved in a legal practice in any of the ways described in the order below.

      Order

      To make a section 43 order against Mr Owen to take effect immediately that:



      no solicitor shall employ or remunerate him in connection with his/her practice as a solicitor;

      no employee of a solicitor shall employ or remunerate him in connection with the solicitor?s practice;

      no recognised body shall employ or remunerate him;

      no manager or employee of a recognised body shall employ or remunerate him in connection with the business of that body;

      no recognised body or manager or employee of such a body shall permit him to be a manager of the body; and

      no recognised body or manager or employee of such a body shall permit him to have an interest in the body



      except in accordance with a Society permission.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      05/09/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/645379.article?Decision=2018-09-05

      Outcome: Control of non-qualified staff (section 43 order)
      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.
      Decision details

      IN THE MATTER OF Glyn Owen, a person who was involved in a legal practice but is not a solicitor
      The facts

      Glyn Owen was employed as an applications engineer from 3 October 2016 until 15 December 2017 at a firm authorised by the SRA.

      On 30 October 2017 he was convicted at Manchester Crown Court, of the offences of making indecent photographs of a child x 3; possessing indecent images of a child; and possessing extreme pornographic images.

      On 8 December 2017, he was sentenced to 6 months imprisonment suspended for 24 months. He was ordered to undertake 35 Rehabilitation Activity Requirement Days, and 60 hours unpaid work. He was made subject to a Sexual Harm Prevention Order for 5 years and must sign the Sex Offenders Register for 7 years.

      Mr Owen is currently not working.
      Finding

      I find that Mr Owen is or was involved in a legal practice (as defined by section 43 (1A) of the Solicitors Act 1974) but is not a solicitor and has been convicted of a criminal offence which is such that in the opinion of the Society it would be undesirable for him to be involved in a legal practice in any of the ways described in the order below.
      Order

      To make a section 43 order against Mr Owen to take effect immediately that:

      no solicitor shall employ or remunerate him in connection with his/her practice as a solicitor;
      no employee of a solicitor shall employ or remunerate him in connection with the solicitor?s practice;
      no recognised body shall employ or remunerate him;
      no manager or employee of a recognised body shall employ or remunerate him in connection with the business of that body;
      no recognised body or manager or employee of such a body shall permit him to be a manager of the body; and
      no recognised body or manager or employee of such a body shall permit him to have an interest in the body

      except in accordance with a Society permission.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      04/09/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/157183.article?Decision=2018-09-04

      Outcome: Intervention
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis

      1. The Panel was satisfied that grounds for intervention existed under Paragraph 1(1)(a) of Schedule 1 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended) namely that there was reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of Barbara Julia Gribbin in connection with her practice as a solicitor.

      2. The Panel was satisfied that grounds for intervention existed under Paragraph 1(1)(c) of Schedule 1 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended) as Barbara Julia Gribbin had failed to comply with the rules made by virtue of Sections 31 and 32 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended).

      Intervening agents

      John Owen of

      Gordons LLP,

      Forward House, 8 Duke Street, Bradford, BD1 3QX has been appointed as the intervening agent.



      For enquiries please

      call

      01274 709521 or email

      intervention@gordonsllp.com.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      04/09/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/592466.article?Decision=2018-09-04

      Outcome: Intervention
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details

      Decision to intervene into the recognised body, Ice Blue Legal LLP.

      Reasons/basis



      1. The Panel was satisfied that grounds for intervention existed under paragraph 32(1)(a) of Schedule 2 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985, namely that Barbara Julia Gribbin, as manager at Ice Blue Legal LLP had failed to comply with the rules made by virtue of sections 31 and 32 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended).

      2. The Panel was satisfied that grounds for intervention existed under paragraph 32(1)(d) of Schedule 2 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985, namely that there was reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of Barbara Julia Gribbin, as manager at Ice Blue Legal LLP.



      Intervening agents

      John Owen of

      Gordons LLP,

      Forward House, 8 Duke Street, Bradford, BD1 3QX has been appointed as the intervening agent.



      For enquiries please

      call

      01274 709521 or email

      intervention@gordonsllp.com.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      03/09/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/041988.article?Decision=2018-09-03

      Outcome: Intervention
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      Decision to intervene into practice

      ?



      Reasons/basis

      The Adjudication Panel is satisfied that grounds for intervention existed under Paragraph 1(1)(a)(i) of Schedule 1 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended) there is reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of Mr Tsioupras in connection with his practice.

      The Adjudication Panel is satisfied that grounds for intervention existed under Paragraph 1(1)(h) of Schedule 1 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended) Mr Tsioupras has abandoned his practice.

      The Adjudication Panel is satisfied that grounds for intervention existed under Paragraph 1(1)(m) of Schedule 1 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended) it is necessary to intervene to protect the interests of clients of Mr Tsioupras and the firm.

      Other information

      Nicholas Paul Tsioupras's practising certificate has been suspended with immediate effect.

      ?

      Intervening agents

      James Dunn of

      Devonshires Solicitors LLP,

      30 Finsbury Circus, London, EC2M 7DT has been appointed as the intervening agent.



      For enquiries please

      call

      0207 065 1830 or email

      sra.angelo@devonshires.co.uk.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      24/08/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/164140.article?Decision=2018-08-24

      Outcome: Intervention
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      Decision to intervene into practice

      ?



      Reasons/basis

      The Adjudication Panel is satisfied that grounds for intervention existed under Paragraph 1(1)(a)(i) of Schedule 1 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended) being that there is reason to suspect dishonesty by Mr Collier in connection with his practice.

      The Adjudication Panel is satisfied that grounds for intervention existed under Paragraph 1(1)(c) of Schedule 1 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended) being that Mr Collier failed to comply with rules made by virtue of sections 31 and 32 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended).



      Other informationMichael David Collier's practising certificate has been suspended with immediate effect.Intervening agentsJohn Owen of

      Gordons LLP,

      Forward House, 8 Duke Street, Bradford, BD1 3QX has been appointed as the intervening agent.



      For enquiries please

      call

      01274 202145 or email

      intervention@gordonsllp.com.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      22/08/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/445424.article?Decision=2018-08-22

      Outcome: Condition
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      Zulfiqar Ali's practising certificate for 2017/2018 is subject to the following conditions:



      Zulfiqar Ali is not to act as a manager or owner of an authorised body or authorised non-SRA firm.

      Subject to the condition above Zulfiqar Ali may act as a solicitor, only as an employee where the SRA has first approved the role.

      Zulfiqar Ali is not to act as a compliance officer for legal practice (COLP) or compliance officer for finance and administration (COFA) for any authorised body. He may not act as a head of legal practice (HOLP) or head of finance and administration (HOFA) for any authorised non-SRA firm.

      Zulfiqar Ali is not to undertake any work in relation to immigration unless fully supervised.

      Zulfiqar Ali is not to undertake any work in relation to conveyancing.

      Zulfiqar Ali is not to hold, receive or have access to client money, or act as a signatory to any client account, or have the power to authorise electronic transfers from the client account.





      Reasons/basisThe conditions are both reasonable and proportionate, and necessary in the public interest having regard to the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 and the regulatory objectives and principles governing regulatory activities as contained in section 28 of the Legal Services Act 2007.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      13/08/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/405340.article?Decision=2018-08-13

      Outcome: Intervention
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details

      To intervene into the practice of Johnbosco Eberechukwu Onyeme at World Secure Solicitors Ltd.

      Reasons/basis



      Mr Onyeme has failed to comply with the SRA Principles 2011 and SRA Accounts Rules 2011 which are rules made by the SRA under sections 31 and 32 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (Paragraph 1(1)(c ) Schedule 1, Part I Solicitors Act 1974);

      it is necessary to exercise the powers of intervention to protect the interests of Mr Onyeme's clients or former clients (Paragraph 1(1)(m) Schedule 1, Part I Solicitors Act 1974.





      Intervening agents

      Nigel Coates of

      Russell-Cooke,

      2 Putney Hill, London, SW15 6AB has been appointed as the intervening agent.



      For enquiries please

      call

      0208 394 6400 or email

      fiid@russell-cooke.co.uk.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      13/08/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/645909.article?Decision=2018-08-13

      Outcome: Intervention
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details

      To intervene into the firm of Woprld Secure Solicitors Limited.

      Reasons/basis





      The firm and Mr JohnBosco Onyeme, as manager of the firm, have breahed the SRA Principles 2011 and SRA Accounts Rules 2011 which are rules applicable to them by virtue of Section 9 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (paragraph 32 (1)(a) Schedule 2, Administration of Justice Act 1985);



      it is necessary to intervene into the firm to protect the interests of clients (paragraph 32(1)( e)(i) Schedule 2 Administration of Justice Act 1985).







      Intervening agents

      Nigel Coates of

      Russell-Cooke,

      2 Putney Hill, London, SW15 6AB has been appointed as the intervening agent.



      For enquiries please

      call

      0208 394 6400 or email

      fiid@russell-cooke.co.uk.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      10/08/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/143129.article?Decision=2018-08-10

      Outcome: Approval of employment (section 41)
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      Bimal Thaker has been granted permission under Section 41 of the Solicitors Act 1974, to be engaged under a contract for services made between any SRA authorised body and In-House Consultants Limited, subject to the following conditions:



      Bimal Thaker?s work is limited to that of a General Data Protection Regulation practitioner through In-House Consultants Limited, as described in Bimal Thaker?s email of 30 May 2018 and In-House Consultants Limited?s Terms of Business.

      Bimal Thaker is not involved with and does not have any responsibilities relating to the provision of legal services or any regulated activity by any authorised body.

      Bimal Thaker must inform any authorised body of his status as a struck off solicitor and the terms and conditions of this permission prior to signing any contract for services.

      Bimal Thaker does not have access to any office or client account; is not a signatory to any office or client account and does not have any responsibility for the accounting functions of any authorised body.

      Bimal Thaker must not hold himself out as a solicitor including in publicity by or in connection to In-House Consultants Limited.

      Any proposed variation to Bimal Thaker?s role is notified to the SRA in advance of the change taking place and the variation must not take place until permission is granted by the SRA.

      This approval and the conditions attached to it are subject to review at the absolute discretion of the SRA.



      In these conditions the definitions are as defined in the SRA Handbook Glossary 2012.



      Reasons/basis

      Bimal Thaker was struck off the roll of solicitors on 2 March 2012. In accordance with Section 41 of the Solicitors Act 1974, any solicitor wishing to employ or remunerate him in connection with their practise as a solicitor must obtain the SRA?s approval. The SRA is satisfied that the above employment will not put public confidence in the administration of justice and the provision of legal services or the interests of clients at risk.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      10/08/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/143129.article?Decision=2018-08-10

      Outcome: Approval of employment (section 41)
      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.
      Decision details

      Bimal Thaker has been granted permission under Section 41 of the Solicitors Act 1974, to be engaged under a contract for services made between any SRA authorised body and In-House Consultants Limited, subject to the following conditions:

      Bimal Thaker?s work is limited to that of a General Data Protection Regulation practitioner through In-House Consultants Limited, as described in Bimal Thaker?s email of 30 May 2018 and In-House Consultants Limited?s Terms of Business.
      Bimal Thaker is not involved with and does not have any responsibilities relating to the provision of legal services or any regulated activity by any authorised body.
      Bimal Thaker must inform any authorised body of his status as a struck off solicitor and the terms and conditions of this permission prior to signing any contract for services.
      Bimal Thaker does not have access to any office or client account; is not a signatory to any office or client account and does not have any responsibility for the accounting functions of any authorised body.
      Bimal Thaker must not hold himself out as a solicitor including in publicity by or in connection to In-House Consultants Limited.
      Any proposed variation to Bimal Thaker?s role is notified to the SRA in advance of the change taking place and the variation must not take place until permission is granted by the SRA.
      This approval and the conditions attached to it are subject to review at the absolute discretion of the SRA.

      In these conditions the definitions are as defined in the SRA Handbook Glossary 2012.

      Reasons/basis

      Bimal Thaker was struck off the roll of solicitors on 2 March 2012. In accordance with Section 41 of the Solicitors Act 1974, any solicitor wishing to employ or remunerate him in connection with their practise as a solicitor must obtain the SRA?s approval. The SRA is satisfied that the above employment will not put public confidence in the administration of justice and the provision of legal services or the interests of clients at risk.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      08/08/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/161447.article?Decision=2018-08-08

      Outcome: Termination of suspension of PC/registration
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      The suspension of Geraldine Haden?s practising certificate for 2017/2018 is terminated subject to the following conditions:



      Mrs Haden may not act as a manager or owner of any authorised body or authorised non-SRA firm.

      Mrs Haden can only authorise transfers to and from a firm?s client account while under the supervision of a compliance officer or manager of the firm.



      In these conditions the definitions are as defined in the SRA Handbook Glossary 2012.

      Mrs Haden was adjudged bankrupt at Dudley County Court on 19 July 2017. Her 2017/2018 practising certificate was automatically suspended as a result.



      Reasons/basis

      The above conditions are considered to be necessary in the public interest and reasonable and proportionate having regard to the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 and the regulatory objectives and principles governing regulatory activities as contained in section 28 of the Legal Services Act 2007.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      31/07/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/422493.article?Decision=2018-07-31

      Outcome: Rebuke
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      Doctor Simba is the sole director and owner of Justice Law Limited at The Gatehouse, Regus Gatehouse Way, Aylesbury, Bucks, HP19 8DB. He was involved in a criminal matter which he failed to notify to the SRA. He was found to have acted in breach of principles 6 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2011 and failed to achieve outcome 10.4 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011.

      A written rebuke was issued against Doctor Simba. He was directed to pay costs of ?600.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      30/07/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/36363.article?Decision=2018-07-30

      Outcome: Regulatory settlement agreement
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details

      Regulatory Settlement Agreement

      Reasons/basis

      1. Agreed outcome

      1.1 Shahid Mumtaz is the recognised sole practitioner of KBM Solicitors. Mr Mumtaz agrees to the following outcome to the investigation of his conduct by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA):



      he is rebuked

      to the publication of this agreement

      he will pay the costs of the investigation of ?300.



      Summary of Facts

      2.1 On 11 September 2017, Mr Mumtaz was convicted of common assault at Snaresbrook Crown Court.

      2.2 The sentence imposed was a financial penalty of ?120 and Mr Mumtaz was also ordered to pay a victim surcharge of ?30.

      3. Admissions

      3.1 Mr Mumtaz makes the following admissions which the SRA accepts:



      that by virtue of his conviction stated above, he has breached Principle 6 of the SRA Principles 2011.



      4. Why the agreed outcome is appropriate

      4.1 The SRA considers that the agreed outcome is appropriate because the conditions in rule 3.1 of the SRA Disciplinary Rules 2011 are met, in that:



      the conduct was deliberate or reckless





      the agreed outcome is a proportionate outcome in the public interest

      the conduct was neither trivial nor justifiably inadvertent.

      The amount of the fine takes into account all relevant circumstances, including those set out in Appendix 1 to the SRA Disciplinary Procedure Rules 2011.

      The SRA considers it appropriate that this agreement is published in the interests of transparency in the regulatory and disciplinary process.



      5. Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this Agreement

      5.1 Mr Mumtaz agrees that he will not act in any way which is inconsistent with this agreement such as, for example, by denying the admissions made in this agreement.

      5.2 If Mr Mumtaz acts in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement, the conduct which is subject to this agreement may be considered further by the SRA. That may result in a disciplinary outcome or a referral to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal on the original facts and allegations. Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement may also constitute a separate breach of Principles 2, 6 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2011.

      6. Costs

      6.1 Mr Mumtaz agrees to pay the costs of the SRA's investigation in the sum of ?300. Such costs are due within 28 days of a statement of costs due being issued by the SRA.

      The date of this agreement is 30 July 2018.

      Shahid Mumtaz, Respondent

      Ben Davis, Team Leader, Investigation & Supervision, Solicitors Regulation Authority

      Andrew Jeavons, Team Leader, Investigation & Supervision, Solicitors Regulation Authority

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      26/07/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/645856.article?Decision=2018-07-26

      Outcome: Refusal to grant/Registration
      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.
      Decision details

      Mr Tariq Mehmood Bangash?s application for registration in the register of foreign lawyers for the 2017/2018 practising year has been refused.
      Reasons/basis

      His application was refused because he is not a fit and proper person to practise as a registered foreign lawyer. He is not fit and proper because he was found to have acted dishonestly in connection with his application. His dishonesty related to the creation and submission to the SRA of a false certificate of good standing.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      26/07/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/645856.article?Decision=2018-07-26

      Outcome: Refusal to grant PC/Registration
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details

      Mr Tariq Mehmood Bangash?s application for registration in the register of foreign lawyers for the 2017/2018 practising year has been refused.

      Reasons/basis

      His application was refused because he is not a fit and proper person to practise as a registered foreign lawyer. He is not fit and proper because he was found to have acted dishonestly in connection with his application. His dishonesty related to the creation and submission to the SRA of a false certificate of good standing.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      25/07/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/638366.article?Decision=2018-07-25

      Outcome: Rebuke
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      Decision of the Adjudicator for Publication

      Facts

      On 10 November 2017, Ms Lesley Tibble was convicted at Cambridge Crown Court of the offence of Fraud by abuse of position. She was sentenced to 100 hours unpaid work and ordered to pay ?438.33 compensation to the council.

      Finding

      I find that Ms Tibble who was involved in a legal practice but is not a solicitor has been convicted of a criminal offence which is such that in the opinion of the Society it would be undesirable for her to be involved in a legal practice in all of the ways mentioned in the paragraph below.

      Decision

      I have decided as follows:

      To make a section 43 order that with effect from the date of the letter or email notifying Ms Tibble of this decision:



      no solicitor shall employ or remunerate her in connection with his/her practice as a solicitor;

      no employee of a solicitor shall employ or remunerate her in connection with the solicitor?s practice;

      no recognised body shall employ or remunerate her;

      no manager or employee of a recognised body shall employ or remunerate her in connection with the business of that body;

      no recognised body or manager or employee of such a body shall permit her to be a manager of the body; and

      no recognised body or manager or employee of such a body shall permit her to have an interest in the body



      except in accordance with a Society permission.

      Ms Tibble is ordered to pay ?600 in relation to the SRA?s costs of investigating this matter.

      Rights of appeal/review

      Ms Tibble has



      the internal right to appeal against the section 43 order. There is no separate right of appeal against the decision to publish the order.

      a statutory right to apply to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal for a review of the section 43 order.



      there is no right of appeal against the cost order

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      25/07/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/638366.article?Decision=2018-07-25

      Outcome: Rebuke
      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.
      Decision details

      Decision of the Adjudicator for Publication
      Facts

      On 10 November 2017, Ms Lesley Tibble was convicted at Cambridge Crown Court of the offence of Fraud by abuse of position. She was sentenced to 100 hours unpaid work and ordered to pay ?438.33 compensation to the council.
      Finding

      I find that Ms Tibble who was involved in a legal practice but is not a solicitor has been convicted of a criminal offence which is such that in the opinion of the Society it would be undesirable for her to be involved in a legal practice in all of the ways mentioned in the paragraph below.
      Decision

      I have decided as follows:

      To make a section 43 order that with effect from the date of the letter or email notifying Ms Tibble of this decision:

      no solicitor shall employ or remunerate her in connection with his/her practice as a solicitor;
      no employee of a solicitor shall employ or remunerate her in connection with the solicitor?s practice;
      no recognised body shall employ or remunerate her;
      no manager or employee of a recognised body shall employ or remunerate her in connection with the business of that body;
      no recognised body or manager or employee of such a body shall permit her to be a manager of the body; and
      no recognised body or manager or employee of such a body shall permit her to have an interest in the body

      except in accordance with a Society permission.

      Ms Tibble is ordered to pay ?600 in relation to the SRA?s costs of investigating this matter.
      Rights of appeal/review

      Ms Tibble has

      the internal right to appeal against the section 43 order. There is no separate right of appeal against the decision to publish the order.
      a statutory right to apply to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal for a review of the section 43 order.

      there is no right of appeal against the cost order

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      13/07/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/447012.article?Decision=2018-07-13

      Outcome: Rebuke
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      Mr Khan was given a written rebuke and was ordered to pay the SRA's costs of ?600 in investigating this matter.

      ?



      Reasons/basis

      On 30 October 2015, Mr Ansar Khan was convicted by Sheffield Magistrates Court of two harassment offences contrary to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and the Public Order Act 1986.

      Mr Khan unsuccessfully appealed his conviction to Sheffield Crown Court. On appeal his sentence was increased to a three-month custodial sentence suspended for two years. He was also made subject to a restriction order preventing contact with the victims until 29 October 2020 and was required to pay certain costs.

      His conviction relates to conduct which occurred outside of his professional practice. At the time of his conviction, Mr Khan was employed by Blackwell Solicitors whose head office is at 19 Devonshire Street, Keighley, West Yorkshire. He remains with the firm.

      It was found that his conviction, and the conduct which led to this, breached principles 1 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      12/07/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/567513.article?Decision=2018-07-12

      Outcome: Intervention
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      Decision to intervene into the recognised body,Wirral Solicitors Ltd t/a David Roberts & Co.

      ?



      Reasons/basis





      The Panel was satisfied that grounds for intervention existed under paragraph 32(1)(a) of Schedule 2 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985, namely that David Roberts, as manager at Wirral Solicitors Ltd t/a David Roberts & Co had failed to comply with the rules made by virtue of sections 31 and 32 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended).

      The Panel was satisfied that grounds for intervention existed under paragraph 32(1)(d) of Schedule 2 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985, namely that there was reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of David Roberts, as manager at Wirral Solicitors Ltd t/a David Roberts & Co.





      Intervening agents

      John Owen of

      Gordons LLP,

      Forward House, 8 Duke Street, Bradford, BD1 3QX has been appointed as the intervening agent.



      For enquiries please

      call

      01274 703950 or email

      intervention@gordonsllp.com .

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      12/07/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/275295.article?Decision=2018-07-12

      Outcome: Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal order
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis

      Outcome of SDT Hearing

      This notification relates to a Decision to prosecute before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. This is an independent Tribunal which reaches its own decision after considering all the evidence, including any evidence put forward by the Respondent. The Tribunal had certified that there was a case to answer.

      The matter was heard on 11 ? 12 July 2018.

      Mr. Hersi was fined ?4,000.?

      The SDT judgment will be available at www.solicitorstribunal.org.uk.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      06/07/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/208645.article?Decision=2018-07-06

      Outcome: Intervention
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details

      To intervene into the sole practice of Martyn Robert Brown trading as Integrum Law.

      Reasons/basis



      there is reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of Mr Brown in connection with his practice as a solicitor (Schedule 1, Part I, paragraph 1(1)(a)(i) of the Solicitors Act 1974;

      Mr Brown has failed to comply with the SRA Principles 2011, SRA Accounts Rules 2011 and the SRA Code of Conduct 2011 being rules made by the SRA under sections 31 and 32 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (Schedule 1, Part I, paragraph 1(1)(c) of the Solicitors Act 1974).



      Intervening agents

      Marion Vesey of

      Shacklocks LLP,

      St Peter's House, Bridge Street, Mansfiled, NG18 1AL has been appointed as the intervening agent.



      For enquiries please

      call

      01623 423073 or email

      interventionintegrum@shacklocks.co.uk.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      05/07/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/200015.article?Decision=2018-07-05

      Outcome: Intervention
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details

      Decision to intervene into practice of the late Wendy-Jane Trehy.

      Reasons/basis

      The Adjudication Panel have decided to intervene into the practice of the late Wendy-Jane Trehy at T E Law Limited, on the ground that it is necessary to exercise the powers of intervention to protect the interests of he clients and former clients (Paragraph 1(1)(m) Schedule 1 - Solicitors Act 1974).

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      03/07/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/372657.article?Decision=2018-07-03

      Outcome: Intervention
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details

      Decision to intervene into practice

      Reasons/basis

      The Adjudication Panel is satisfied that grounds for intervention existed under Paragraph 1(1)(a)(i) of Schedule 1 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended) being that there is reason to suspect dishonesty by Mr Nabi in connection with his practice as a solicitor.

      The Adjudication Panel is satisfied that grounds for intervention existed under Paragraph 1(1)(c) of Schedule 1 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended) being that Mr Nabi failed to comply with rules made under Sections 31 and 32 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended).

      Other information

      Kessar Nabi's practising certificate has been suspended with immediate effect.

      ?

      Intervening agents

      Neal Boland of

      Stephensons Solicitors LLP,

      Wigan Investment Centre, Waterside Drive, Wigan, WN3 5BA has been appointed as the intervening agent.



      For enquiries please

      call

      0333 344 4776 or email

      sraenquiries@stephensons.co.uk.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      29/06/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/295914.article?Decision=2018-06-29

      Outcome: Referral to Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis

      This notification relates to a Decision to prosecute before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. This is an independent Tribunal which will reach its own decision after considering all the evidence, including any evidence put forward by the Solicitor. The Tribunal has certified that there is a case to answer in respect of allegations which are or include that :-

      On 20 July 2017, she was convicted of committing an act/series of acts with intent to pervert the course of justice.

      The allegations are subject to a Hearing before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal and are as yet unproven.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      27/06/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/162485.article?Decision=2018-06-27

      Outcome: Rebuke
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details

      Mr Gregorian was issued with a written rebuke and ordered to pay costs of ?825.





      Reasons/basis

      Richard Gregorian was found to have breached principle 6 of the SRA Principles 2011. He used derogatory and offensive language when describing a third party in a series of text messages and emails sent to his client between 30 July 2015 and 24 September 2015.

      He thereby failed to behave in a way which maintains the public?s trust in him and the provision of legal services.

      Mr Gregorian is the sole principal at the recognised sole practice of Gregorian Emerson Family Law Solicitors at 19 Railton Road, Guildford, Surrey, GU2 9LX.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      27/06/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/115948.article?Decision=2018-06-27

      Outcome: Intervention
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      To intervene into the practice of Keith Smart practising as Keith Smart & Co.

      ?



      Reasons/basis



      there is reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of Keith Smart in connection with his practice as a solicitor (Solicitors Act 1974, Schedule1, Part I, paragraph 1(1)(a)(i); and

      Mr Smart has failed to comply with rules made by the SRA under sections 31 and 32 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (Solicitors Act 1974, Schedule 1, Part I, paragraph 1(1)(c).



      Intervening agents

      Paul Caldicott of

      Blake Morgan,

      New Kings Court. Tollgate, Chandlers Ford, Eastleighj, SO53 3LG has been appointed as the intervening agent.



      For enquiries please

      call

      02380 857270 or email

      interventions@blakemorgan.co.uk.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      22/06/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/148408.article?Decision=2018-06-22

      Outcome: Regulatory settlement agreement
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis

      Bibi Akrameem Gadwah (SRA ID: 148408)

      BG Lawyers LLP (SRA ID: 562350)

      Regulatory Settlement Agreement



      Bibi Akrameem Gadwah of BG Lawyers LLP of 225 Marsh Wall, 3rd Floor Suite 20, London, E14 9FW agrees to the following outcome of the investigation into her professional conduct under reference TRI/1206029-2017.



      Background



      On 21 April 2015, the Forensic Investigation Unit of the Solicitors Regulation Authority (?SRA?) carried out an inspection of the Firm and produced a Report dated 23 April 2015 (?the First Report?). The inspection was carried out at the firm's previous office, 3rd Floor, Cumbrian House, 217 Marsh Wall, Canary Wharf, London, E14 9FJ. A second inspection was carried out at this address on 3 February 2016. The Report produced as a result of that inspection is dated 12 January 2017 (?the Second Report?).



      The First Report





      The First Report identified that books of account were not in compliance with the SRA Accounts Rules (?AR 2011?). The SRA Investigation Officer (?IO?) could not offer an opinion as to the books of account due to the lack of any proper accounting records. The IO noted that:

      3.1 Ledgers were not produced to show dealings with client money or office money.

      3.2 Money relating to all client matters was not recorded on a client cash account.

      3.3 Office money relating to all client matters was not recorded on the office side of a client ledger.

      3.4 It was not possible to ascertain client balances due to deficiencies in the firm's accounting records.

      3.5 The firm did not appear to have produced a comparison of client money held at the firm's banks with its accounting records and a reconciliation statement illustrating any differences.

      3.6 A cash account and total liabilities listing produced to the IO was only for the period October 2014 to 31 March 2015, which only dealt with client and not office bank account transactions.

      3.7 There was no evidence of the existence of any similar records for the period from at least 6 January 2012 (the most recent comparison date provided by the firm's last Accountant's Report) and it was not possible to verify the brought forward balance stated in the October 2014 cash account.

      3.8 Two Accountant's Reports for the periods 23 December 2011 to 31 December 2012 (due by 30 September 2013) and 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2013 (due by 30 June 2014) were outstanding.

      3.9 The firm?s replacement bookkeeper was based offsite in Liverpool and was not able to resolve the various accounting problems that had been created by the migration of earlier computerised accounting information.



      The vast majority of client transactions were paid either through the Legal Aid Agency, or under a fixed fee retainer, which meant that most client transactions had passed through office bank account. No records were produced to the IO to show the various office transactions that had taken place on client matters, nor was there any evidence to show that an office bank reconciliation had been performed.



      The second report



      The Second Report identified almost identical issues to those in the First Report. The IO noted that the only significant progress that appeared to have been made when the second inspection commenced was that the firm?s bookkeeper had been working on bringing the books of account up to date. The IO also noted that the firm had failed to produce proper, or fully written up accounting records showing:



      5.1 Ledgers dealing with client or office funds.5.2 Monies relating to all client matters recorded on a cash account.5.3 client balances.5.4 Full client account bank reconciliations.

      A list of liabilities to clients as at the extraction date was not available on the inspection date of 3 February 2016, as the accounting and client ledger records were not up to date.

      The SRA received the Accountant?s Reports for the years 2012, 2013 and 2014 in December 2015 and they were all qualified. The Reports showed a shortage on comparing client liabilities to cash held in client account. Of the six comparison dates in the three reports only that of 31 December 2014 showed a nil difference. In each of the five other comparison dates, there were differences representing a shortage on client account ranging from ?71,697.31 to ?8,259.15.

      The firm's reporting Accountant conceded that the differences could have represented a shortage on client account, but also that they reflected the lack of accurate postings of financial transactions on a timely and accurate basis.

      The Accountant?s reports recorded similar observations for the periods ending 2012, 2013 and 2014, which included (but were not limited to):



      9.1 Accounting records were not written up on a regular and contemporary basis, nor were they written up correctly.9.2 Client ledger reconciliations were not carried out on a monthly basis resulting in errors not being corrected at the time.9.3 Client ledger balances were not reviewed on a regular basis.9.4 Various posting were done on client ledgers, which did not bear the correct transaction date.9.5 Client files selected for audit were not made available and the reporting Accountant could not test check if adjustments had been correctly made.



      Failure to provide a satisfactory and timely response to the SRA



      The SRA wrote to Miss Gadwah on 30 June 2015 requesting her full explanation and supporting documentation in relation to issues raised in the First Report. Miss Gadwah provided a short response on 21 July 2015.

      The SRA sent a further letter to Miss Gadwah on 24 May 2017 requesting an explanation in respect of issues arising from the Second Report. Miss Gadwah provided her response on 4 June 2017. The SRA sent further correspondence to Miss Gadwah on 5 June 2017, 7 June 2017, 26 June 2017 and 18 July 2017 requesting information. Miss Gadwah provided responses on 5 June 2017, 22 and 23 June 2017, 12 July 2017 and 20 July 2017. However, those responses were not open or timely and documents were provided in a piecemeal fashion.

      On 11 August 2017, an authorised officer considered the Reports and the explanations received from Miss Gadwah and resolved that proceedings should be taken at the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal against Miss Gadwah.

      The decision to take proceedings at the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal against Miss Gadwah will be rescinded upon the basis of her entering into this Agreement.



      Admissions



      Bibi Akrameem Gadwah makes, and the SRA accepts, the following admissions:



      14.1 During the period of at least 23 December 2011 to 3 February 2016, she breached Rules 7, 20.9, 29 and 32 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011 (?AR 2011?), and Principles 8 and 10 of the SRA Principles 2011 in that she:14.1.1 allowed her firm's client account to become overdrawn (AR 20.9); 14.1.2 failed to keep accounting records properly written up to show her dealings with both client money and office money (AR 29.1);

      14.1.3 failed to appropriately record all dealings with client money and office money (AR 29.2);

      14.1.4 failed to appropriately record all dealings with office money in an office cash account (AR 29.4);

      14.1.5 failed to ensure that the current balance on client ledger accounts were shown or readily ascertainable (AR 29.9);

      14.1.6 failed to carry out client account reconciliations (AR 29.12 and 29.13);



      14.1.7 failed to remedy breaches of the Accounts Rules promptly upon discovery (AR 7);14.1.8 failed to obtain and deliver to the SRA promptly, Accountant's Reports for each accounting period within 6 months of the end of the accounting period (AR 32.1);

      14.1.9 failed to run her business or carry out her role in the business effectively and in accordance with proper governance and sound financial and risk management (Principle 8); and



      14.1.10 failed to protect client money and assets (Principle 10).



      ?

      14.2 She failed to provide satisfactory and timely responses to the SRA?s letter dated 24 May 2017 and email of 5 June 2017 in breach of Principles 6 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2011 and failed to achieve Outcome 10.6 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011.



      Mitigation



      Bibi Akrameem Gadwah put forward the following by way of mitigation for the breaches admitted above. These are not adopted or necessarily accepted by the SRA.

      The firm's bookkeeper retired in June 2012 and shortly afterwards, the firm transferred its bookkeeping system from Alpha-law software to a new computerised system (DPS). This led to significant accounting problems, which were never properly addressed. This integration did not go to plan, but no clients were affected.

      The firm no longer operated a client account, that account having been closed on 10 March 2016. The firm?s work was now almost 100% legally aided. The firm had carried out 5 privately paid divorce cases in the past 12 months [i.e. from 4 June 2017], which were fixed agreed fees.

      The firm?s accounting records were now properly written up and properly written up records were being kept to show the firm?s dealings with office money relating to each client?s matter.



      Regulatory Outcome



      As Miss Gadwah has accepted the above breaches, an outcome that involves the admissions set out in paragraph 14 above, is proportionate in all the circumstances.

      Miss Gadwah is therefore rebuked for the breaches identified in paragraph 14 above and fined ?2000 for each inspection and Report (total fine ?4,000).

      Miss Gadwah agrees that this outcome will be published by the SRA and that it may also be disclosed to any person upon request or otherwise.

      Miss Gadwah agrees agree to pay the costs of the investigation, including the SRA?s legal costs, in the sum of ?5,977.10 inclusive of VAT and disbursements within 28 days of a statement of costs due being issued by the SRA.

      Miss Gadwah agrees she will not act in any way that is inconsistent with this agreement by, for example, denying the misconduct admitted in paragraph 14 above.

      If any other terms of this agreement are not complied with within the time limits agreed, or if Miss Gadwah acts inconsistently in any way with this agreement, Miss Gadwah accepts that all issues may be referred back to the SRA for reconsideration, including that there be referral to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal or SRA internal sanction on the original facts and allegations and also on the basis that such failure to comply constitutes a breach of Principles 2, 6 and 7 SRA Principles 2011.



      The date of this agreement is 22 June 2018

      Suzanne Gordon Head of Legal and Enforcement (for the Solicitors Regulation Authority)

      Bibi Akrameem Gadwah

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      20/06/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/092903.article?Decision=2018-06-20

      Outcome: Intervention
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis



      The Panel was satisfied that grounds for intervention existed under Paragraph 1(1)(a) of Schedule 1 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended) namely that there was reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of Harold Anthony Newell in connection with his practice as a solicitor.

      The Panel was satisfied that grounds for intervention existed under Paragraph 1(1)(c) of Schedule 1 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended) as Harold Anthony Newell had failed to comply with the rules made by virtue of Sections 31 and 32 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended).

      The Panel was satisfied that grounds for intervention existed under Paragraph 1(1)(m) of Schedule 1 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended) namely that it was necessary to intervene to protect the interests of Mr Newell?s clients or the interests of beneficiaries of any trust of which Mr Newell is or was a trustee.



      Intervening agents

      Susie Dryden of

      Blake Morgan LLP,

      New Kings Court, Tollgate, Eastleigh, SO53 3LG has been appointed as the intervening agent.



      For enquiries please

      call

      023 8085 7270 or email

      interventions@blakemorgan.co.uk .

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      20/06/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/115125.article?Decision=2018-06-20

      Outcome: Condition
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      Paul Brimelow?s practising certificate for 2017/2018 is subject to the following conditions which are necessary, reasonable and proportionate in the public interest:



      Mr Brimelow shall not be the sole solicitor manager or sole solicitor owner of an authorised body.

      Mr Brimelow shall not act as compliance officer for finance and administration (COFA) or compliance officer for legal practice (COLP) for any authorised body.

      Mr Brimelow shall not be the sole signatory to any client or office account, shall not have sole responsibility for client or office account or sole responsibility for authorising client or office account transfers.



      In these conditions the definitions are as defined in the SRA Handbook Glossary 2012.



      Reasons/basisThe above conditions are considered to be necessary in the public interest and reasonable and proportionate having regard to the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 and the regulatory objectives and principles governing regulatory activities as contained in section 28 of the Legal Services Act 2007.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      14/06/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/78000.article?Decision=2018-06-14

      Outcome: Rebuke
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      Hadfields Butt & Bowyer of 104 West Street, Farnham, Surry GU9 7ET failed to comply with an undertaking it gave to another firm of solicitors within a reasonable period of time. Its conduct was found to have failed to achieve Outcome 11.2 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011. A written rebuke was issued against Hadfields. It was directed to pay costs of ?600.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      13/06/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/544663.article?Decision=2018-06-13

      Outcome: Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal order
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis



      Outcome of SDT Hearing



      This notification relates to a Decision to prosecute before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. This is an independent Tribunal which reaches its own decision after considering all the evidence, including any evidence put forward by the Respondent. The Tribunal had certified that there was a case to answer.

      The matter was heard on 12 and 13 June 2018.

      Mr.Poothavelil was fined ?10,000.

      The SDT judgment will be available at www.solicitorstribunal.org.uk

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      08/06/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/162975.article?Decision=2018-06-08

      Outcome: Intervention
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details

      To intervene into the practice of Mr Omar Faruque at Southall Solicitors.

      Reasons/basis



      Mr Faruque has failed to comply with rules made by virtue of sections 31 and 32 of the Solicitors Act 1974: (paragraph 1(1)( c) of Schedule 1 to the Solicitors Act 1974; and

      It is necessary to intervene into Mr Faruque's practice at the firm to protect the interests of clients, former or potential clients; (paragraph 1(1)(m) Schedule 1 Solicitors Act 1974).



      Intervening agents

      James Dunn of

      Devonshires,

      30 Finsbury Circus, London, EC2M 7DT has been appointed as the intervening agent.



      For enquiries please

      call

      0207 065 1830 or email

      intervention-team@devonshires.co.uk.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      08/06/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/519374.article?Decision=2018-06-08

      Outcome: Intervention
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details

      To intervene into the practice of Ms Qurat Ul Ain Akbar at Southall Solicitors.

      Reasons/basisThere is reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of Ms Akbar in connection with a body of which she is or was a manager; (paragraph 5(3)(a) Schedule 14 Courts and Legal services Act 1990).Intervening agentsJames Dunn of

      Devonshires,

      30 Finsbury Circus, London, EC2M 7DT has been appointed as the intervening agent.



      For enquiries please

      call

      0207 065 1830 or email

      intervention-team@devonshires.co.uk.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      08/06/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/550504.article?Decision=2018-06-08

      Outcome: Intervention
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details

      To intervene into Southall Solicitors trading as Malik Law.

      Reasons/basis





      There is reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of Ms Qurat Ul Ain Akbar, a manager of Southall Solicitors, in connection with the firm's business (Paragraph 32(1)(d)(i) Schedule 2 Administration of Justice Act 1985);

      Mr Omar Faruque, a manager of the firm, has failed to comply with rules applicable to the firm or manager by virtue of section 9 (Paragraph 32(1)(a) Schedule 2 Administration of Justice Act 1985);

      It is necessary to exercise the powers of intervention in relation to the firm to protect the interests of clients (or former or potential clients) of the firm (paragraph 32(1)(e )(i) Schedule 2 Administration of Justice Act 1985.







      Intervening agents

      James Dunn of

      Devonshires,

      30 Finsbury Circus, London, EC2M 7DT has been appointed as the intervening agent.



      For enquiries please

      call

      0207 065 1830 or email

      intervention-team@devonshires.co.uk.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      07/06/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/645344.article?Decision=2018-06-07

      Outcome: Approval of employment (section 43)
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      IN THE MATTER OF: Robert John Withers of Ferndale, Wales

      A person who is or was involved in a legal practice but is not a solicitor

      SECTION 43 SOLICITORS ACT 1974 (AS AMENDED)

      FINDING

      Mr Withers was involved in a legal practice (as defined by section 43(1A) of the Solicitors Act 1974) but not as a solicitor and has occasioned or been a party to an act or default which involved such conduct on his part that in the opinion of the Society it would be undesirable for him to be involved in a legal practice in any of the ways described in the order below.

      ORDER

      To make an order pursuant to section 43 that with effect from the date of the letter or email notifying Mr Withers of this decision:



      no solicitor shall employ or remunerate him in connection with his/her practice as a solicitor;

      no employee of a solicitor shall employ or remunerate him in connection with the solicitor's practice;

      no recognised body shall employ or remunerate him;

      no manager or employee of a recognised body shall employ or remunerate him in connection with the business of that body;

      no recognised body or manager or employee of such a body shall permit him to be a manager of the body; and

      no recognised body or manager or employee of such a body shall permit him to have an interest in the body except in accordance with a Society permission.



      THIS ORDER IS SUBJECT TO AN INTERNAL RIGHT OF APPEAL AND A STATUTORY RIGHT OF REVIEW TO THE SOLICITORS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      07/06/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/645344.article?Decision=2018-06-07

      Outcome: Approval of employment (section 43)
      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.
      Decision details

      IN THE MATTER OF: Robert John Withers of Ferndale, Wales A person who is or was involved in a legal practice but is not a solicitor

      SECTION 43 SOLICITORS ACT 1974 (AS AMENDED)

      FINDING

      Mr Withers was involved in a legal practice (as defined by section 43(1A) of the Solicitors Act 1974) but not as a solicitor and has occasioned or been a party to an act or default which involved such conduct on his part that in the opinion of the Society it would be undesirable for him to be involved in a legal practice in any of the ways described in the order below.

      ORDER

      To make an order pursuant to section 43 that with effect from the date of the letter or email notifying Mr Withers of this decision:

      no solicitor shall employ or remunerate him in connection with his/her practice as a solicitor;
      no employee of a solicitor shall employ or remunerate him in connection with the solicitor's practice;
      no recognised body shall employ or remunerate him;
      no manager or employee of a recognised body shall employ or remunerate him in connection with the business of that body;
      no recognised body or manager or employee of such a body shall permit him to be a manager of the body; and
      no recognised body or manager or employee of such a body shall permit him to have an interest in the body except in accordance with a Society permission.

      THIS ORDER IS SUBJECT TO AN INTERNAL RIGHT OF APPEAL AND A STATUTORY RIGHT OF REVIEW TO THE SOLICITORS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      01/06/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/400170.article?Decision=2018-06-01

      Outcome: Approval of employment (section 43)
      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.
      Decision details

      Fine, costs and a Section 43 order
      Reasons/basis

      DISCIPLINARY DECISION FOR PUBLICATION

      Anthony Alfred Parker is employed as a police station representative at GGP Law Limited whose head office is at The Beehive, 11a Victoria Square, Aberdare, CF44 7LA.

      During his employment he:

      made an offensive and sexist comment to a colleague;
      sent a lewd and offensive email to another colleague;
      sent confidential client information to his personal email address; and
      while absent from the office, accessed his work emails and permanently deleted a number of emails without authority and against an express instruction not to do so.

      Mr Parker was found to have acted in breach of Principles 2, 6, 7 and 9 of the SRA Principles 2011 and to have acted dishonestly.

      Mr Parker was issued with a written rebuke. He was directed to pay a penalty of ?2,000 and costs of ?600.
      Other information

      ORDER FOR PUBLICATION

      IN THE MATTER OF Anthony Alfred Parker, a person who is or was involved in legal practice but is not a solicitor.

      The Facts:

      Anthony Alfred Parker is employed as a police station representative at GGP Law Limited whose head office is at The Beehive, 11a Victoria Square, Aberdare, CF44 7LA.

      During his employment he:

      made an offensive and sexist comment to a colleague;
      sent a lewd and offensive email to another colleague;
      sent confidential client information to his personal email address; and
      while absent from the office, accessed his work emails and permanently deleted a number of emails without authority and against an express instruction not to do so.

      He was found to have breached Principles 2, 6, 7 and 9 of the SRA Principles 2011 and to have acted dishonestly.

      FINDING

      I find that Mr Parker is or was involved in a legal practice (as defined by section 43 (1A) of the Solicitors Act 1974) but is not a solicitor and has occasioned or been a party to, with or without the connivance of a solicitor, an act or default in relation to a legal practice which involved conduct on his part of such a nature that in the opinion of the Society it would be undesirable for him to be involved in a legal practice in any of the ways described in the order below.

      ORDER

      To make a section 43 order that with effect from the date of the letter or email notifying Mr Parker of this decision:

      no solicitor shall employ or remunerate him in connection with his/her practice as a solicitor;
      no employee of a solicitor shall employ or remunerate him in connection with the solicitor?s practice;
      no recognised body shall employ or remunerate him;
      no manager or employee of a recognised body shall employ or remunerate him in connection with the business of that body;
      no recognised body or manager or employee of such a body shall permit him to be a manager of the body; and
      no recognised body or manager or employee of such a body shall permit him to have an interest in the body

      except in accordance with a Society permission.

      THIS ORDER IS SUBJECT TO AN INTERNAL RIGHT OF APPEAL AND A STATUTORY RIGHT OF REVIEW TO THE SOLICITORS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      01/06/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/372288.article?Decision=2018-06-01

      Outcome: Condition
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      Zakia Khalid is subject to Regulation 3 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011.

      Miss Khalid?s practising certificate for 2017/2018 is subject to the following conditions:



      Miss Khalid cannot be a manager or owner of an authorised body without the advanced written approval of the SRA.

      Miss Khalid shall not act as a compliance officer for legal practice or compliance officer for finance and administration for any authorised body.



      In these conditions, the terms used are as defined in the SRA Handbook Glossary 2012.



      Reasons/basisThe above conditions are considered to be necessary in the public interest and reasonable and proportionate having regard to the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 and the regulatory objectives and principles governing regulatory activities as contained in section 28 of the Legal Services Act 2007.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      30/05/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/387314.article?Decision=2018-05-30

      Outcome: Intervention
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details

      Decision to intervene into practice.

      Reasons/basisThe Adjudicator is satisfied that there is reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of Mbolokele Nsimba in connection with his practice (paragraph 1(1)(a)(i) of Schedule 1 to the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended)).Intervening agentsNigel Coates of

      Russell-Cooke LLP,

      Russell-Cooke LLP, 2 Putney Hill, London, SW15 6AB has been appointed as the intervening agent.



      For enquiries please

      call

      020 8394 6400 or email

      FIID@russell-cooke.co.uk.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      30/05/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/570556.article?Decision=2018-05-30

      Outcome: Intervention
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details

      The Adjudicator decided to intervene into the practice of Cadem Hope Limited.

      Reasons/basis

      The Adjudicator is satisfied that there is reason to suspect dishonesty on Mbolokele Nsimba's part, who is a manager of the firm, in connection with the firm's business (paragraph 32(1)(d) of Schedule 2 to the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (as amended)).

      Intervening agents

      Nigel Coates of

      Russell-Cooke LLP,

      Russell-Cooke LLP, 2 Putney Hill, London, SW15 6AB has been appointed as the intervening agent.



      For enquiries please

      call

      0208 394 6400 or email

      FIID@russell-cooke.co.uk.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      30/05/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/629094.article?Decision=2018-05-30

      Outcome: Intervention
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details

      The Adjudicator decided to intervene into the practice of First Choice Legal Services Limited.

      Reasons/basis

      The Adjudicator is satisfied that there is reason to suspect dishonesty on Mbolokele Nsimba's part, who is a manager of the firm, in connection with the firm's business (paragraph 32(1)(d) of Schedule 2 to the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (as amended)).





      Intervening agents

      Nigel Coates of

      Russell-Cooke LLP,

      Russell-Cooke LLP, 2 Putney Hill, London, SW15 6AB has been appointed as the intervening agent.



      For enquiries please

      call

      0208 394 6400 or email

      FIID@russell-cooke.co.uk.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      25/05/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/345335.article?Decision=2018-05-25

      Outcome: Control of non-qualified staff (section 43 order)
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      In the matter of Dr Maria Antonia Goncalves De Sousa Cameira, a person who is or was involved in legal practice, to make a section 43 order against Dr Cameira to take effect immediately that:



      no solicitor shall employ or remunerate her in connection with his/her practice as a solicitor;

      no employee of a solicitor shall employ or remunerate her in connection with the solicitor?s practice;

      no recognised body shall employ or remunerate her in connection with the business of that body;

      no manager or employee of a recognised body shall employ or remunerate her in connection with the business of that body;

      no recognised body or manager or employee of such a body shall permit her to be a manager of the body; and

      no recognised body or manager or employee of such a body shall permit her to have an interest in the body



      except in accordance with Society permission.



      Reasons/basis

      Dr Maria Antonia Goncalves De Sousa Cameira was the sole director of Cameira Law Limited until August 2008. She was a Registered European Lawyer until October 2016.

      On 18 October 2016 she was convicted at Snaresbrook Crown Court of the offence of Fraud by abuse of position. She was sentenced to six years imprisonment.

      Dr Cameira absconded on the second day of her trial and is currently in Portugal. Extradition proceedings are ongoing.

      As Dr Cameira is or was involved in a legal practice (as defined by section 43 (1A) of the Solicitors Act 1974) but is not a solicitor and has been convicted of a criminal offence which is such that in the opinion of the Society it would be undesirable for her to be involved in legal practice in any of the ways described in the order above.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      22/05/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/231205.article?Decision=2018-05-22

      Outcome: Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal order
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis



      Outcome of SDT Hearing



      The matter was heard on 22 May 2018.

      The Tribunal varied the practising conditions it had previously imposed on Mr Whitcomb on 22 May 2013.

      The Tribunal ordered that Mr Whitcomb may not practise as a sole practitioner and may not be a sole signatory on any client account.

      The conditions will be in existence for a period of two years

      The SDT judgment will be available at www.solicitorstribunal.org.uk

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      14/05/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/152890.article?Decision=2018-05-14

      Outcome: Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal order
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details





      Outcome of SDT Hearing



      This notification relates to a Decision to prosecute before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. This is an independent Tribunal which reaches its own decision after considering all the evidence, including any evidence put forward by the Respondent. The Tribunal had certified that there was a case to answer.

      The matter was heard on 25 April 2017.

      Mr.Brown was fined ?10,000.

      The SDT judgment will be available at www.solicitorstribunal.org.uk

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      09/05/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/461200.article?Decision=2018-05-09

      Outcome: Referral to Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis

      Outcome of SDT Hearing

      This notification relates to a Decision to prosecute before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. This is an independent Tribunal which reaches its own decision after considering all the evidence, including any evidence put forward by the Respondent. The Tribunal had certified that there was a case to answer.

      The matter was heard on 4 October 2018.

      Mr Oxer was Struck Off the Roll.

      The SDT judgment will be available at www.solicitorstribunal.org.uk

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      09/05/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/115428.article?Decision=2018-05-09

      Outcome: Intervention
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis



      1. The Panel was satisfied that grounds for intervention existed under Paragraph 1(1)(a) of Schedule 1 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended) namely that there was reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of Phillip Charles David York in connection with his practice as a solicitor.



      2. The Panel was satisfied that grounds for intervention existed under Paragraph 1(1)(c) of Schedule 1 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended) as Phillip Charles David York had failed to comply with the rules made by Sections 31 and 32 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended).



      Intervening agents

      Karen Thompson of

      Lester Aldridge LLP,

      Russell House, Oxford Road, Bournemouth, BH8 8EX has been appointed as the intervening agent.



      For enquiries please

      call

      01202 786341 or email

      interventions@LA-Law.com .

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      08/05/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/147401.article?Decision=2018-05-08

      Outcome: Referral to Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis

      This notification relates to a decision to prosecute before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. This is an independent Tribunal which will reach its own decision after considering all the evidence, including any evidence put forward by the solicitor. The Tribunal has certified that there is a case to answer in respect of allegations which are or include that:



      On the 26 May 2017 he used his Facebook account to publicly post offensive and profane communications towards a third party;

      Between the 12 July 2015 and 7 December 2016 and on dates unknown, he used his Twitter account which publicly identified him as a solicitor to publicly post offensive and profane communications;



      The allegations are subject to a hearing before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal and are as yet unproven.

      Other information

      In respect of Allegation 2 above, the SRA wishes to make it clear that it does not condone the actions of any individuals involved in exchanges with Mr Lewis on Twitter, during which Mr Lewis might have posted offensive and profane communications.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      03/05/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/127392.article?Decision=2018-05-03

      Outcome: Termination of suspension of PC/registration
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      The suspension of Mr David Edward Rees? practising certificate for 2017/2018 is terminated subject to the following conditions:



      Mr Rees may not act as a manager or owner of any authorised body except for the winding down of David Edward Rees & Co.

      Mr Rees delivers half yearly accountant?s reports, such reports and any cease to hold accountant?s reports required, to be delivered within 2 months of the end of the period to which they relate.



      In these conditions the definitions are as defined in the SRA Handbook Glossary 2012.



      Reasons/basis

      Mr Rees was adjudged bankrupt at the High Court of Justice on 16 April 2018. His 2017/2018 practising certificate was automatically suspended as a result.

      The above conditions are considered to be necessary in the public interest and reasonable and proportionate having regard to the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 and the regulatory objectives and principles governing regulatory activities as contained in section 28 of the Legal Services Act 2007.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      02/05/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/449099.article?Decision=2018-05-02

      Outcome: Rebuke
      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details
      Mr Jain was given a written rebuke and was ordered to pay a financial penalty of ?2,000. He was also ordered to pay the SRA's costs of ?600 in investigation this matter.
      Reasons/basis
      Between 8 and 9 June 2017, Vivek Jain, who is a solicitor, posted comments in a public discussion on Facebook. It was found that his comments were offensive and pejorative towards the religion of one of the participants.

      His conduct in this regard was found to breach Principles 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011.

      Other information
      Mr Jain is not currently practising as a solicitor.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      02/05/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/449099.article?Decision=2018-05-02

      Outcome: Rebuke
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details





      Mr Jain was given a written rebuke and was ordered to pay a

      financial penalty of ?2,000. He was also ordered to pay the SRA's costs of

      ?600 in investigation this matter.





      Reasons/basis

      Between 8 and 9 June 2017, Vivek Jain, who is a solicitor, posted comments in a public discussion on Facebook. It was found that his comments were offensive and pejorative towards the religion of one of the participants.



      His conduct in this regard was found to breach Principles 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011.



      Other informationMr Jain is not currently practising as a solicitor.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      01/05/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/565603.article?Decision=2018-05-01

      Outcome: Rebuke
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details

      The firm was given a written rebuke and was directed to pay a financial penalty of ?2,000. It was also ordered to pay the SRA?s costs of ?1,825 in relation to this matter.

      Reasons/basis



      Noble Law is a recognised body, which trades from 89 London Road, Morden, Surrey, SM4 5HP. The firm has two solicitor managers, Mr Habib Ahmad and Mr Rana Khan.

      On 1 May 2018, the following findings were made against the firm in relation to a personal injury matter:



      The firm breached section 56 of the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 by paying a prohibited referral fee. In doing this, the firm failed to achieve outcome 9.8 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011.

      The firm failed to pay damages to the correct individuals and in so doing, breached Principle 10 of the SRA Principles.

      The firm failed to disclose a financial interest that a company had in referring the personal injury matter to the firm and in so doing, failed to achieve Outcome 9.4 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011.

      The firm failed to provide prior written notification of its costs to clients. In so doing, its conduct breached Rule 17.2 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      27/04/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/133208.article?Decision=2018-04-27

      Outcome: Termination of suspension of PC/registration
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      The suspension of Rupert Cowen?s practising certificate for 2017/2018 is terminated subject to the following conditions:



      Mr Cowen is not a manager or owner of an authorised body or authorised non-SRA firm.

      In the event it becomes necessary to wind up Carr & Co (SRA ID: 263617), Mr Cowen may be a manager of Carr & Co where he has first been approved by us.



      In these conditions the definitions are as defined in the SRA Handbook Glossary 2012.



      Mr Cowen was adjudged bankrupt in the High Court of Justice on 14 March 2018. His 2017/2018 practising certificate was automatically suspended as a result.



      Reasons/basisThe above conditions are considered to be necessary in the public interest and reasonable and proportionate having regard to the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 and the regulatory objectives and principles governing regulatory activities as contained in section 28 of the Legal Services Act 2007.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      23/04/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/487450.article?Decision=2018-04-23

      Outcome: Intervention
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details

      Decision to intervene into practice

      Reasons/basis

      The Adjudication Panel is satisfied that Mr Usman:

      - failed to comply with rules made under Section 31 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended) (Paragraph 1(1)(c) Schedule 1 Solicitors Act 1974.

      - has been committed to prison (Paragraph 1(1)(e) Schedule 1 Solicitors Act 1974).



      Intervening agents

      Nigel Coates of

      Russell-Cooke LLP,

      2 Putney Hill, London, SW15 6AB has been appointed as the intervening agent.



      For enquiries please

      call

      0208 394 6400 or email

      FIID@russell-cooke.co.uk .

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      18/04/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/343077.article?Decision=2018-04-18

      Outcome: Rebuke
      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details
      Mr Alex Ndive Lisinge appears to act for several firms as a self-employed solicitor. His place of work is unknown. He undertook immigration work for clients without being properly authorised to do so. He also failed to cooperate and provide information to the SRA.

      His conduct was found to have failed to achieve Outcome 10.8 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011 and to have breached Principles 4, 6 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2011 and Rule 1.1 of the SRA Practice Framework Rules 2011. A written rebuke was issued against Mr Lisinge. He was directed to pay costs of ?1,350.

      Reasons/basis
      Detailed above

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      18/04/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/266174.article?Decision=2018-04-18

      Outcome: Intervention
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      The Panel was satisfied that:?



      There is reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of Mr Ali in connection with his practice at Malik Law Chambers (Paragraph 5(3)(a) of Schedule 14 to the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990).

      Intervention is necessary to protect client interests (Paragraph 5(3)(j) of Schedule 14 to the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990).





      Intervening agents

      James Dunn of

      Devonshires Solicitors LLP,

      30 Finsbury Circus, London, EC2M 7DT has been appointed as the intervening agent.



      For enquiries please

      call

      020 7065 1830 or email

      team@devonshires.co.uk.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      18/04/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/343077.article?Decision=2018-04-18

      Outcome: Rebuke
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      Mr Alex Ndive Lisinge appears to act for several firms as a self-employed solicitor. His place of work is unknown. He undertook immigration work for clients without being properly authorised to do so. He also failed to cooperate and provide information to the SRA.

      His conduct was found to have failed to achieve Outcome 10.8 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011 and to have breached Principles 4, 6 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2011 and Rule 1.1 of the SRA Practice Framework Rules 2011. A written rebuke was issued against Mr Lisinge. He was directed to pay costs of ?1,350.



      Reasons/basisDetailed above

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      18/04/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/191187.article?Decision=2018-04-18

      Outcome: Intervention
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis

      The Panel was satisfied that:



      There is reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of Dr Malik in connection with his practice at Malik Law Chambers (Paragraph 1(1)(a)(i) of Schedule 1 to the Solicitors Act 1974)

      Dr Malik has failed to comply with the SRA Principles 2011 (Paragraph 1(1)(c) of Schedule 1 to the Solicitors Act 1974)

      Intervention is necessary to protect the interests of Dr Malik?s clients (Paragraph 1(1)(m) of Schedule 1 to the Solicitors Act 1974)



      Intervening agents

      James Dunn of

      Devonshires Solicitors LLP,

      30 Finsbury Circus, London, EC2M 7DT has been appointed as the intervening agent.



      For enquiries please

      call

      020 7065 1830 or email

      team@devonshires.co.uk.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      18/04/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/348326.article?Decision=2018-04-18

      Outcome: Intervention
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details

      ?Decision to intervene into

      the recognised body, Malik Law Chambers.

      Reasons/basis



      The Panel was satisfied that:

      There is reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of Dr Akbar Ali Malik and on the part of Mr Imtiaz Ali, the firm?s managers, in connection with the firm?s business (Paragraph 32(1)(d)(i) of Schedule 2 to the Administration of Justice Act).

      That Malik Law Chambers and Dr Akbat Ali Malik, as a manager of the firm, have failed to comply with the SRA Principles 2011 (Paragraph 32(1)(a) of Schedule 2 to the Administration of Justice Act).



      Intervening agents

      James Dunn of

      Devonshires LLP ,

      30 Finsbury Circus, London EC2M 7DT has been appointed as the intervening agent.



      For enquiries please

      call

      020 7065 1830 or email

      intervention-team@devonshires.co.uk.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      17/04/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/202468.article?Decision=2018-04-17

      Outcome: Regulatory settlement agreement
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      Regulatory Settlement Agreement

      1. Agreed outcome

      1.1 Simon Hopkins, a solicitor and sole director of Hopkins Legal Limited (The Firm), agrees to the following outcome to the investigation into his conduct by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA):



      he is rebuked

      he is fined ?2,000

      he will pay the costs of the investigation of ?600, and

      to the publication of this agreement.



      2. Summary of facts

      2.1. The Firm began trading in 2015. Mr Hopkins is the sole director. He is also the Firm?s Compliance Officer for Finance and Administration. The firm submitted a qualified accountants? report to the SRA, dated 14 November 2016, for the period 1 November 2015 to 31 May 2016.

      2.2. As a result, the SRA decided to investigate the firm.

      2.3. The investigation found that:



      There was no cash book or record of client balances on individual client ledgers.

      Mr Hopkins did not undertake three-way client bank account reconciliations.

      On 11 occasions Mr Hopkins paid out more money from client account than he held for that specific client.

      Mr Hopkins held ?3,255 of damages received for his client in the Firm?s office account instead of its client account

      Client money received to pay professional disbursements was held in the Firm?s office account instead of its client account. These professional disbursements were then paid from the client account notwithstanding that the money was held in the office account.

      On 37 instances, Mr Hopkins transferred more money from client to office account that was owed.

      On at least four matters Mr Hopkins was in funds to pay professional disbursements but he did not do so.

      When the breaches were brought to the attention of Mr Hopkins, by the Investigation Officer, Mr Hopkins remedied the breaches and the Investigation Officer verified this.



      3. Admissions

      3.1. Mr Hopkins makes the following admissions which the SRA accepts:



      by failing to maintain a cash book and by failing to record balances on client ledgers he breached Rule 29.1 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011

      by failing to carry out three-way client bank account reconciliations he breached Rule 29.12 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011

      by holding client money in the Firm?s office bank account, he breached Rule 14.1 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011

      by paying more money out of client account than he held for individual clients he breached:



      Principle 10 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011, and

      Rule 20.6 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011



      by failing to ensure the Firm complied with the SRA Accounts Rules 2011, he breached: breached:



      Rule 6.1 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011, and

      Rule 8.5(e)(i)(A) of the SRA Authorisation Rules 2011





      4. Why the agreed outcome is appropriate

      4.1. In relation to the admissions above the SRA considers that the agreed outcome is appropriate because the conditions in rule 3.1 of the SRA Disciplinary Rules 2011 are met, in that:



      the conduct related to a failure to comply with Mr Hopkin?s regulatory obligations?

      the agreed outcome is a proportionate outcome in the public interest, and

      the conduct was neither trivial nor justifiably inadvertent.



      4.2. In deciding that the agreed outcome is proportionate, the SRA has taken into account the following mitigation which Mr Hopkins has put forward:



      He has rectified the breaches and put in place systems to minimise the risk of similar breaches occurring in the future.

      The firm was newly authorised, and he had not fully appreciated the commitment and time that would be required to properly manage the Firm?s accounting systems alongside fee earning work.

      At the time of the identified breaches he was subject to challenging family commitments which required more of his time than anticipated.



      4.3. The amount of the fine takes into account all relevant circumstances, including those set out in Appendix 1 to the SRA Disciplinary Procedure Rules 2011.

      4.4. The SRA considers it appropriate that this agreement is published in the interests of transparency in the regulatory and disciplinary process.

      5. Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this Agreement

      5.1. Mr Hopkins agrees that he will not act in any way which is inconsistent with this agreement such as, for example, by denying the admissions made in this agreement.

      5.2. If Mr Hopkins acts in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement, the conduct which is subject to this agreement may be considered further by the SRA. That may result in a disciplinary outcome or a referral to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal on the original facts and allegations. Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement may also constitute a separate breach of Principles 2, 6 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2011.

      6. Costs

      6.1. Mr Hopkins agrees to pay the costs of the SRA's investigation in the sum of ?600. Such costs are due within 28 days of a statement of costs due being issued by the SRA.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      17/04/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/145502.article?Decision=2018-04-17

      Outcome: Approval of employment (section 41)
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      Bodnar & Co have been granted permission under Section 41 of the Solicitors Act 1974 to employ Mr Aurangzeb Iqbal as a Legal Clerk, subject to the following conditions:



      Mr Iqbal?s work is limited to that described in the firm?s application and email dated 5 March 2018.

      Mr Iqbal does not have his own caseload.

      Mr Iqbal is supervised by Ivan Bodnar. In Mr Bodnar?s absence, Mr Iqbal will not attend the office.

      Mr Iqbal will not have access to any office or client account; will not act as a signatory to any client or office account; will not have the power to authorise transfers from any client or office account; and will not have any responsibility for the firm?s accounting functions.

      Mr Iqbal must not hold himself out as a solicitor. Mr Iqbal?s status as a non-solicitor must be made clear to clients.

      Any proposed variation in the terms of the job description or supervision arrangements must be notified to the SRA in advance of the change taking place and the variation must not take place unless and until permission is granted.

      This approval and the conditions attached to it are reviewable at the SRA?s discretion at such time(s) as the SRA thinks fit.





      Reasons/basis

      Mr Iqbal was struck off the roll of solicitors on 16 September 2004. In accordance with Section 41 of the Solicitors Act 1974, any solicitor wishing to employ or remunerate him in connection with their practise as a solicitor must obtain the SRA?s approval. The SRA is satisfied that the above employment will not put public confidence in the administration of justice and the provision of legal services or the interests of clients at risk.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      14/04/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/421147.article?Decision=2018-04-14

      Outcome: Condition
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      Ms Ali-Iqbal is subject to Regulation 3 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011.

      Ms Ali-Iqbal?s practising certificate for 2017/2018 is subject to the following conditions which are necessary, reasonable and proportionate in the public interest:



      Shameem Ali-Iqbal may not act as a compliance officer for legal practice (COLP) or compliance officer for finance and administration (COFA) for any sole practitioner, authorised body or authorised non-SRA firm.



      In these conditions the definitions are as defined in the SRA Handbook Glossary 2012.



      Reasons/basis above conditions are considered to be necessary in the public interest and reasonable and proportionate having regard to the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 and the regulatory objectives and principles governing regulatory activities as contained in section 28 of the Legal Services Act 2007.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      11/04/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/108586.article?Decision=2018-04-11

      Outcome: Intervention
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details

      Decision to intervene into practice

      Reasons/basis

      The Adjudication Panel is satisfied that grounds for intervention existed under Paragraph 1(1)(c) of Schedule 1 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended) being that Mr Smith has failed to comply with the rules made by virtue of sections 31 and 32 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended).

      The Adjudication Panel is satisfied that grounds for intervention existed under Paragraph 1(1)(m) of Schedule 1 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended) being that it is necessary to protect the interests of clients (or former or potential clients) of Mr Smith or the firm Legacy Legal Solicitors, or the interests of the beneficiaries of any trust of which they are or were a trustee.

      Intervening agents

      Marion Vesey of

      Shacklocks LLP,

      St Peters House, Bridge Street, Mansfield, Nottinghamshire,NG18 1A has been appointed as the intervening agent.



      For enquiries please

      call

      01623 423073 or email

      interventionlegacy@shacklocks.co.uk.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      09/04/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/026689.article?Decision=2018-04-09

      Outcome: Regulatory settlement agreement
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis

      Regulatory Settlement Agreement



      Mr Gareth Ward Fatchett of FS Legal Solicitors LLP, 1 Hagley Court South, The Waterfront, Brierley Hill, West Midlands DY5 1XE agrees to the following outcome of the investigation into his professional conduct.



      Background



      As a result of a complaint to the SRA in September 2015, the SRA commenced an investigation.?

      Mr Fatchett is a solicitor and, at the time in question, a Director at R Legal Limited (trading as Regulatory Legal Solicitors) and acts for six clients who were investors in an investment scheme. The allegations arise out of matters relating to the conduct of civil litigation conducted on behalf of his clients against Company X, a company involved with the investment scheme.

      On 13 November 2014, at a without notice hearing, Mr Fatchett appeared before Judge A of the Chancery Division of the High Court (Birmingham District Registry) and applied for and obtained a freezing injunction against Company X to prevent dissipation of its assets.?

      The freezing injunction was subsequently lifted. In his judgment dated 8 April 2015, Judge A was critical of Mr Fatchett?s conduct.? In particular, Judge A was critical that Mr Fatchett had:

      misled the Court at the hearing on 13 November 2014; made an inadequate note of the hearing in particular that the note did not include a direction of the Court, contrary to Judge A?s express instructions to include the direction in the note.



      Misleading the Court



      In the judgement dated 8 April 2015, Judge A confirmed that he had made a freezing order against Company X on 13 November 2014. He stated that:

      ?[Company X] was said to be instrumental in the promotion of the scheme;A number of brochures were put before me, as the judge asked to grant the freezing order, which I was told had been provided to the claimants by [Company X], either directly or through its agents.?

      Judge A further stated:

      ?It is [Company X?s] claim that it had no role in the promotion of the scheme, and that appears to be accepted. It is no longer said that the agents promoting the scheme were [Company X?s] agents;It is also now accepted that the allegation principally relied on previously before me, of [Company X] having responsible for the distribution of certain brochures, is unsustainable. It is now said that the claimant cannot remember what brochures they saw or where they got them from. I have no explanation as to how I came to be told something quite different on the earlier hearing, and that is something which went to the heart of justifying the freezing order that was sought;I say went to the heart of that justification for this reason: the claim that was mainly emphasised before me on that occasion of the without notice hearing was based upon a series of misrepresentations said to have been contained in the very brochures of which complaint was made;I was naturally anxious to know what the connection was between [Company X] and those brochures because they were not [Company Xs] brochures, they were [Company Y?s] brochures. At one stage, I was taken to reassure me on that point, to a particular brochure displaying [Company X?s] logo but was not told, as plainly I should have been, that that particular brochure had nothing to do with any of the claimants;It seems to me that there was, at best, serious non-disclosure on these points. I say at best because, in truth, there was misrepresentation. I was told that which is no longer contended for, namely that [Company X] had put these brochures into circulation, there having been some direct contact between [Company X], or (I was told) its agents, and the claimants. It now turns out that the agents in question were not [Company X?s] agents but [Company Y?s] agents, and that I was wrongly shown one brochure in a misleading way to suggest a connection between [Company X] and the claimants which could not have occurred;The non-disclosures that I have referred to were obviously highly material and substantial, relating as they did to matters which were of great concern to me at the time. In my judgment, they justify if not require the setting aside of the freezing order and the refusal of further relief. That is so, characterising the non-disclosure as mere non-disclosures. That conclusion may be all the more compelling in view of the positive misrepresentations that were made, although I do not say (because I am not in a position to find) that they were deliberate. There may well have been some misunderstanding between Mr Fatchett and his clients which has been put right and that I need not dwell upon further.?



      Making an inadequate note of the hearing



      As set out above, at the hearing before Judge A on 13 November 2014, Mr Fatchett appeared as an advocate before the Court. He was accompanied by a paralegal, Paralegal C, who took a note.

      At the commencement of the hearing, Judge A asked Mr Fatchett: ?Do you have someone making a note, have you?? Mr Fatchett replied: ?Yes. I certainly have. Yes.?

      At the end of the judgment, Judge A asked: ?What about particulars of claim? Can you get those served in the next 14 days to court? Should ideally have particulars of claim.? Mr Fatchett replied: ?Yes, your Honour. That is correct. I was thinking more for?..?. Judge A then stated: ?I am just telling you. You might be in big trouble if you don?t have them. Please include in the note that ? you can say I expect particulars of claim to have been served by the next occasion or a very good reason for their not having been prepared.?

      In the handwritten note made of the hearing, Paralegal C has written: ?PoC within next 14 days or v good reason if not prepared ? ?big trouble without them??.

      The typed note of the hearing does not, as instructed by Judge A, refer to the Judge?s instruction that the particulars of claim be served by the next occasion or a very good reason for them not having been prepared. The typed note was prepared by Paralegal C and served subsequently on Company X?s solicitors.



      In his judgment dated 8 April 2015, Judge A made the following observations about the note:

      ?As is usual, a note of that hearing was to be provided by the claimants to the defendant affected by the order, namely Company X. I made in plain in my discussions with Mr Fatchett of Regulatory Legal, the claimant?s [sic] solicitors, at the conclusion of the without notice hearing that the note should record the fact that I expected on the next occasion, which as it happens was a hearing before Judge B, the Particulars of Claim to have been served or a proper explanation to have been given for their not being served. I required that to be put into the note but it was not. A very inadequate note was provided instead which barely complied, if it complied at all, with the claimants? solicitors obligations.?

      and

      ?My conclusion [about non-disclosures] is also reinforced by the failure to take a proper note of the without notice hearing and to include within that note my comments on the need for service of Particulars of Claim by the return date, or an explanation for their non-service. As it happens, an extension of time was agreed by the parties and approved by Judge B without either Company X?s solicitors or Judge B being informed of my comments.?





      Findings



      Mr Fatchett makes, and the SRA accepts, the following admissions.

      In the course of acting on behalf of six individual clients (?the Clients?) in civil litigation before the High Court, and in the course of making an application on behalf of the Clients for a freezing injunction against Company X which was heard by the Court on 13 November 2014 (?the Application?), caused the Court to be misled in that by one or more of a skeleton argument dated November 2014, an affidavit dated 13 November 2014 and in oral submissions to the Court on 13 November 2014 he:

      provided inaccurate information to the Court as to the involvement of Company X in the preparation of a brochure relied on in support of the Application;placed before the Court material as to the involvement of Company X in the preparation and distribution of brochures and promotion of an investment scheme relied on in support of the Application, as to which he had not made proper enquiries; and in doing so breached Principles 1 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011.?Following the hearing of the Application, Mr Fatchett failed to ensure that an adequate note of the hearing on 13 November 2014 was provided to Company X and/or Company X?s solicitors in that the note which he caused to be prepared failed to include material concerning service of the Particulars of Claim expressly stated by the Court to be a necessary part of the note, and in doing so breached Principles 1 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011.



      Responsibility for professional conduct



      Mr Fatchett has accepted responsibility for the breaches set out above.?

      Mr Fatchett has agreed to a rebuke by the SRA, a fine of ?2,000, to pay the SRA?s costs in the sum of ?9,250 (exclusive of VAT), and publication of this decision.



      Mitigation



      Fatchett has advanced by way of mitigation:

      he advanced his clients? case at the hearing on 13 November 2014 as he understood it, and based on the enquiries that he had made. Company X had not responded to requests for information which would have assisted his understanding; the inclusion of the incorrect brochure in the Court papers was due to an administrative error. However, the text included in that brochure was similar to the text included in the correct brochures which were also provided to the Court;the typed note was prepared by Paralegal C, who was inexperienced, and the omission to record Judge X?s direction was not identified by senior members of the team;all members of the team have undergone training to ensure that the errors made in this case are not repeated;freezing injunctions have been obtained in the past without the difficulties and errors encountered in this case, and have done so since. This was an isolated incident and not typical of Mr Fatchett?s conduct or that of his firm; he paid the wasted cost orders to ensure that no prejudice befell his clients.



      Regulatory Outcome



      Mr Fatchett is fined ?2,000 and rebuked in respect of the breaches identified above.

      Mr Fatchett agrees that this outcome will be published by the SRA and may also be disclosed to any person upon request or otherwise.

      Mr Fatchett agrees to pay the SRA?s legal costs, in the sum of ?9,250 (exclusive of VAT), within 28 days of the signature of this Agreement.

      Mr Fatchett agrees that he will not act in any way inconsistent with this agreement by, for example, denying the misconduct admitted in paragraph 14 above.

      Mr Fatchett understands and accepts that if any terms of this agreement are not complied with within the time limits agreed, or if Mr Fatchett acts in any way inconsistent with this agreement, then his conduct will be referred to the SDT on the original facts and allegations and also on the basis that he has failed to comply with this Regulatory Settlement Agreement and that this will constitute a breach of Principles 2, 3 and 6 the SRA Code of Conduct 2011.



      The date of this agreement is 9 April 2018.

      David Middleton (for the Solicitors Regulation Authority)

      Gareth Ward Fatchett

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      05/04/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/029866.article?Decision=2018-04-05

      Outcome: Condition
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      Habib-Ur- Rahmaan Maroof is subject to Regulation 3 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011.

      Mr Maroof?s practising certificate for 2017/2018 is subject to the following conditions which are necessary, reasonable and proportionate in the public interest:



      Mr Maroof is not a manager or owner of any authorised body or authorised non-SRA firm.

      Subject to the condition above, Mr Maroof may act as a solicitor, only as an employee where the role has first been approved by us.

      Mr Maroof shall inform any actual or prospective employer of these conditions and the reasons for their imposition.



      In these conditions the definitions are as defined in the SRA Handbook Glossary 2012.



      Reasons/basisThe above conditions are considered to be necessary in the public interest and reasonable and proportionate having regard to the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 and the regulatory objectives and principles governing regulatory activities as contained in section 28 of the Legal Services Act 2007.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      04/04/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/422117.article?Decision=2018-04-04

      Outcome: Condition
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      Devon Brown is subject to Regulation 3 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011.

      Mr Brown?s practising certificate for 2017/2018 is subject to the following conditions which are necessary, reasonable and proportionate in the public interest:



      With effect from three months of the date of this decision:



      a. Mr Brown is not a sole practitioner or manager or owner of an authorised body.

      Mr Brown does not hold or receive client money, or act as a signatory to any client or office account, or have the power to authorise transfers from any client or office account.



      Mr Brown may not act as a compliance officer for legal practice (COLP) or compliance officer for finance and administration (COFA) for any authorised body



      In these conditions the definitions are as defined in the SRA Handbook Glossary 2012.





      Reasons/basisThe above conditions are necessary in the public interest and reasonable and proportionate having regard to the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 and the regulatory objectives and principles governing regulatory activities as contained in section 28 of the Legal Services Act 2007.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      29/03/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/138520.article?Decision=2018-03-29

      Outcome: Regulatory settlement agreement
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      1.1 Terence Henry Donnellan, sole principal of The Walkers Partnership (the Firm), agrees to the following outcome to the investigation of his conduct by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA):



      he is rebuked

      he is fined ?1200

      to the publication of this agreement

      he will pay the costs of the investigation of ?600.



      2.1 Since 1996 Mr Donnellan has either been in partnership or acted as sole principal of the Firm. He is also the Firm?s Compliance Officer for Finance and Administration.

      2.2 Mr Donnellan is responsible for authorising all payments from the Firm?s client account. Following receipt of a qualified accountant?s report, the SRA investigated the Firm in May 2016. The investigation found that Mr Donnellan did not check the client ledgers to ensure he held enough monies for clients before authorising the payments. There were 54 client matters in which Mr Donnellan had transferred more money out of client account than he was holding for that client. The sums totalled ?4,514.69 across the 54 matters.

      2.3 Due to a series of bank errors in 2015 and 2016, a number of the Firm?s business expenses were paid from its client account. The payments were usually promptly identified and reversed. Mr Donnellan wrote to the bank on several occasions throughout 2015 and 2016 to raise his concerns about the errors and ask the bank to put in place measures to prevent them from happening.

      2.4 As at May 2016, there were nine payments of business expenses made from client account which had not been reversed. These totalled ?6,160.53.

      2.5 On 8 July 2016, Mr Donnellan replaced all the monies which had been wrongly taken from the Firm?s client account. Following the SRA?s investigation, Mr Donnellan has reviewed and updated the Firm?s accounting procedures. The Firm?s last two accountant?s reports since the investigation have been unqualified.

      3. Admissions

      3.1 Mr Donnellan makes the following admissions which the SRA accepts:



      by making payments from client account in excess of monies held for the particular client he breached Rule 20.6 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011

      by failing to replace the monies wrongly taken from client account due to bank error until 6 July 2016 he breached Rule 7.1 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011

      by paying out of client account more than he was holding for particular clients and by failing to replace those monies promptly upon becoming aware of it, he breached Principle 10 of the SRA Principles 2011.



      4. Why the agreed outcome is appropriate

      4.1 The SRA considers that the agreed outcome is appropriate because the conditions in rule 3.1 of the SRA Disciplinary Rules 2011 are met, in that:



      Mr Donnellan?s conduct related to a failure to comply with his regulatory obligations;

      the agreed outcome is a proportionate outcome in the public interest; and

      the conduct was neither trivial nor justifiably inadvertent.



      4.2 In deciding that the agreed outcome is proportionate, the SRA has taken into account the admissions made by Mr Donnellan and the following mitigation which he has put forward:



      he has co-operated with the SRA investigation

      the Firm?s latest accountants report demonstrates that he has remedied the issues

      he feels the outsourcing arrangements in respect of the cashiering function contributed to the errors which arose.



      4.3 The amount of the fine takes into account all relevant circumstances, including those set out in Appendix 1 to the SRA Disciplinary Procedure Rules 2011.

      4.4 The SRA considers it appropriate that this agreement is published in the interests of transparency in the regulatory and disciplinary process.

      5. Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this Agreement

      5.1 Mr Donnellan agrees that he will not act in any way which is inconsistent with this agreement such as, for example, by denying the admissions made in this agreement.

      5.2 If Mr Donnellan acts in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement, the conduct which is subject to this agreement may be considered further by the SRA. That may result in a disciplinary outcome or a referral to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal on the original facts and allegations. Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement may also constitute a separate breach of Principles 2, 6 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2011.

      6. Costs

      6.1 Mr Donnellan agrees to pay the costs of the SRA's investigation in the sum of ?600. Such costs are due within 28 days of a statement of costs due being issued by the SRA.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      26/03/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/360915.article?Decision=2018-01-25

      Outcome: Condition
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      Leon George Hines is subject to Regulation 3 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011.

      Mr Hines? practising certificate for 2017/2018 is subject to the following conditions which are necessary, reasonable and proportionate in the public interest:



      Mr Hines may not act as a Manager or Owner of any authorised body.

      Mr Hines may not act as a compliance officer for legal practice (COLP) or compliance officer for finance and administration (COFA) for any authorised body.



      In these conditions the definitions are as defined in the SRA Handbook Glossary 2012.



      Reasons/basisThe above conditions are considered to be necessary in the public interest and reasonable and proportionate having regard to the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 and the regulatory objectives and principles governing regulatory activities as contained in section 28 of the Legal Services Act 2007.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      23/03/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/43592.article?Decision=2018-03-23

      Outcome: Termination of suspension of PC/registration
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      The suspension of Deirdre Douglas practising certificate for 2017/2018 is terminated subject to the following condition:



      Miss Douglas is not a manager or owner of an authorised body or authorised non-SRA firm.



      In this condition the definitions are as defined in the SRA Handbook Glossary 2012.

      Miss Douglas was adjudged bankrupt in the High Court of Justice on 13 February 2018. Her 2017/2018 practising certificate was automatically suspended as a result.



      Reasons/basisThe above condition is considered to be necessary in the public interest and reasonable and proportionate having regard to the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 and the regulatory objectives and principles governing regulatory activities as contained in section 28 of the Legal Services Act 2007.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      23/03/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/522504.article?Decision=2018-03-23

      Outcome: Regulatory settlement agreement
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      1. Agreed outcome

      1.1 Paul David Wilkes a solicitor agrees to the following outcome to the investigation of his conduct by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA):



      he is rebuked

      he is fined ?1,000

      to the publication of this agreement

      he will pay the costs of the investigation of ?300



      2. Summary of facts

      2.1 On 24 April 2017, Mr Wilkes was convicted of driving with excess alcohol at the Magistrates? Court of Guernsey.

      2.2 The sentence was:



      disqualification from driving for a period of 36 months.

      a fine of ?800.



      3. Admissions

      3.1 Mr Wilkes admits, and the SRA accepts that by virtue of his conviction for driving with excess alcohol he has undermined the trust the public places in him and in the delivery of legal services in breach of Principle 6 of the SRA Principles 2011.

      4. Why the agreed outcome is appropriate

      4.1 The SRA considers that the agreed outcome is appropriate as the conditions in Rule 3.1 of the SRA Disciplinary Rules 2011 are met, in that:



      the conduct was deliberate or reckless.

      the agreed outcome is proportionate in the public interest.

      the conduct was neither trivial nor justifiably inadvertent.



      4.2 In deciding that the agreed outcome is proportionate, the SRA has taken into account the admission made by Mr Wilkes and the following mitigation which he has put forward:



      he co-operated fully with the police

      this was an isolated incident

      his actions did not cause serious damage or loss

      he reported his conviction to the SRA promptly



      4.3 The amout of the fine takes into account all relevant circumstances, including those set out in Appendix 1 to the SRA Disciplinary Procedure Rules 2011.

      4.4 The SRA considers it appropriate that this agreement is published in the interests of transparency in the regulatory and disciplinary process.

      5. Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this Agreement

      5.1 Mr Wilkes agrees that he will not act in any way which is inconsistent with this agreement such as, for example, by denying the admissions made in this agreement.

      5.2 If Mr Wilkes acts in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement, the conduct which is subject to this agreement may be subject to further consideration by the SRA. That may result in a disciplinary sanction or a referral to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal on the original facts and allegations. Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement may also constitute a separate breach of Principles 2, 6 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2011.

      6. Costs

      6.1 Mr Wilkes agrees to pay the costs of the SRA's investigation in the sum of ?300. Such costs are due within 28 days of a statement of costs due being issued by the SRA.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      22/03/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/480792.article?Decision=2018-03-22

      Outcome: Referral to Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis



      Outcome of SDT Hearing



      This notification relates to a Decision to prosecute before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. This is an independent Tribunal which reaches its own decision after considering all the evidence, including any evidence put forward by the Respondent. The Tribunal had certified that there was a case to answer.

      The matter was heard on 18 July 2018.

      Miss Harling was suspended for a period of 15 months commencing on 18 July 2018.

      The SDT judgment will be available at www.solicitorstribunal.org.uk

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      22/03/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/612125.article?Decision=2018-03-22

      Outcome: Regulatory settlement agreement
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis

      Regulatory Settlement Agreement



      Steven Nacarlo of SBW Lawyers of Cross House, Sutton Road, St Helens, Merseyside, WA9 3DR agrees to the following outcome of the investigation into his professional conduct under reference TRI/1169372-2016.



      Background



      At all material times, Steven Nacarlo was a non-lawyer manager of SBW Lawyers ("the firm") where he worked together with two other non lawyer managers.

      On 14 January 2014 the firm contacted the SRA through their insolvency adviser who advised that he had been instructed by the firm to consider options as a result of the firm's weakening financial position and pressure from creditors. The insolvency adviser subsequently advised that the firm would need to undergo significant restructuring and enter into a Partnership Voluntary Arrangement ("PVA") with its creditors.

      On 20 January 2015, a duly authorised officer of the SRA ("the FI Officer") commenced an inspection of the books of account and other documents of both firm. On 24 March 2015, the FI Officer interviewed and Steven Nacarlo and the other managers of the firm. That inspection culminated in a Forensic Investigation Report (FI report) dated 30 June 2015.

      The FI Report recorded that there was a cash shortage in the client account of the firm of ?37,254.16. The shortage had been caused by the firm retaining monies in respect of unpaid professional (36 individual amounts ranging from ?48.00 to ?2,969.40) disbursements incurred on behalf of their clients in their office account. The firm should have by the end of the second working day, following receipt of the unpaid professional disbursement, either paid the professional disbursement or transferred a sum for its settlement to their client account. Instead they would write out a cheque for the payments of the disbursement which would subsequently be cancelled.

      Steven Nacarlo and the other managers accepted that they should have paid the professional disbursements once the monies had cleared in office account however they decided to retain those monies in the office bank account at a time when the firm was in financial difficulty in the belief that the bank would provide further financial support. The firm rectified the cash shortage in client account by 15 January 2015. The shortage had existed since March 2014 when the firm began withholding payment of professional disbursements.

      On 14 June 2016 an authorised officer considered the Report and the explanations received on behalf of Mr Nacarlo and resolved that proceedings should be taken at the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. Proceedings were commenced against Mr Nacarlo and the other managers of the firm.

      An agreed outcome was reached between the parties dated 21 April 2017 which was approved by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal on 25 April 2017 and the proceedings were concluded. Under the terms of the agreed outcome, the other manager received fines of ?10,000.00 each and Mr Nacarlo agreed to pay a fine of ?5,000.00 and to be made subject to an order under section 43(2) of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended), which provided in short that he could not be employed by a solicitor without the prior consent of the SRA. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal made an order to that effect ("the order"). The SRA will make an application to revoke the order because the SDT did not have jurisdiction to make the order.



      Admissions



      Steven Nacarlo makes, and the SRA accepts, the following admissions:

      Between April 2014 and January 2015 the firm, of which he was a principal, retained unpaid professional disbursements totalling ?37,254.16 in its office account for a period in excess of two working days and each thereby breached Rule 17.1(b)(ii) of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011 ("SAR 2011") and Principles 2, 6 and 10 of the SRA Principles 2011 ("the SRA Principles");he failed to remedy the breaches set out above promptly upon discovery and each thereby breached Rule 7.1 of the SAR 2011 and Principles 2, 6 and 10 of the SRA Principles.



      Mitigation





      Steven Nacarlo puts forward the following by way of mitigation (which is not adopted or necessarily accepted by the SRA) for the breaches admitted above:

      10.1. he voluntarily notified the SRA of the facts and circumstances giving rise to the misconduct;

      10.2. he made open and frank admissions at an early stage and has cooperated with the SRA;

      10.3. there are no allegations of dishonesty against him;

      10.4. save for the misconduct highlighted the he has no regulatory disciplinary history;

      10.5. he demonstrates insight and explains that the events occurred due to the firms' difficult financial circumstances at the material time. He asserts that they were seeking to secure continued support from their bank having been customers of the Bank for 15 years and the withdrawal of support from their bank, as a direct result of advice from its consultants, was sudden and unexpected. Mr Nacarlo asserts that they acted to resolve the position by selling their multi-track book (at a significant discount) when the position of the bank and its consultants changed. He asserts that the sale of the multi- track book resulted in considerable financial loss in the long term for him and the other managers but their priority was to remedy the financial position as quickly as possible. He was aware that disbursements were always their contractual obligation to pay regardless of whether a particular case was successful and have produced evidence of ?240,062.00 being paid from their own funds from 2012 to 2016 in respect of disbursements where costs were not recovered from insurers;

      10.6. that no clients or any of the firms suppliers suffered any financial losses;

      10.7. that he did not appreciate that their actions at the time created a shortage on client account. He was aware that they were in breach of the accounts rules and by the time of the FI interview appreciated the position as to the shortage created;

      10.8. that they acted promptly at their own personal cost by disposing of the multi track caseload at a significant discount so as to rectify the shortfall created;

      10.9. that the firm has put in place procedures so that this situation will not happen again and the position is being monitored by the Supervisor in the PVA.





      Regulatory Outcome



      Steven Nacarlo has accepted the above breaches, the admissions set out in paragraph 9 above and that the regulatory outcome of a financial penalty is proportionate in all the circumstances.

      Steven Nacarlo is therefore fined ?5,000.00 for the breaches admitted in paragraph 9 above.

      Steven Nacarlo agrees that this outcome will be published by the SRA and that it may also be disclosed to any person upon request or otherwise.

      Steven Nacarlo agrees to pay the costs of the investigation, including the SRA?s legal costs, in the sum of ?5,000.00 inclusive of VAT and disbursements such sum not to be paid until the determination of the PVA.

      Steven Nacarlo agrees he will not act in any way that is inconsistent with this agreement by, for example, denying the misconduct admitted in paragraph 9 above.

      If any other terms of this agreement are not complied with within the time limits agreed, or if Steven Nacarlo acts inconsistently in any way with this agreement, he accepts that all issues may be referred back to the SRA for reconsideration, including that there be referral to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal or SRA internal sanction on the original facts and allegations and also on the basis that such failure to comply constitutes a breach of Principles 2, 6 and 7 SRA Principles 2011.



      The date of this agreement is 22/03/18

      Suzanne Gordon, Director of Legal and Enforcement (for the Solicitors Regulation Authority)

      Steven Nacarlo

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      20/03/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/160827.article?Decision=2018-03-20

      Outcome: Condition
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details

      Shahid Aslam?s practising certificate for 2017-2018 has been issued free from conditions.

      Reasons/basisWe are satisfied that none of the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 or the regulatory objectives contained in the Legal Services Act 2007 and the principles governing regulatory activities in Section 28 of that Act make it necessary in the interests of the public to impose any practising certificate condition.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      19/03/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/126484.article?Decision=2018-03-19

      Outcome: Referral to Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis

      This notification relates to a Decision to prosecute before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. This is an independent Tribunal which will reach its own decision after considering all the evidence, including any evidence put forward by the Solicitor. The Tribunal has certified that there is a case to answer in respect of allegations which are or include that :-



      1. As the sole Director of Ecohouse Developments Ltd (?EDL?) and/or sole Director of Black Country Legal Consultancy (?BCLC?) and/or Director of Black Country Business Consultants Ltd (?BCBC?) he:

      1.1 Caused or allowed misrepresentations to be made to potential

      investors in EDL:

      1.2 Failed to maintain, preserve or deliver up adequate accounting

      records for EDL.

      1.3 Involved himself in a dubious scheme and/or dubious

      transactions and/or caused or allowed transactions which bore

      the hallmarks of fraud and/or money laundering.

      1.4 Profited from, and/or misled members of the public into investing

      in that scheme

      1.5 Provided false information about the amount he was paid by

      EDL and whether he could access EDL?s bank accounts before

      May 2014.



      The allegations are subject to a Hearing before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal and are as yet unproven.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      16/03/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/449931.article?Decision=2018-03-16

      Outcome: Condition
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      Mr Dixit is subject to Regulation 3 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011.

      Mr Dixit?s practising certificate for 2017/2018 is subject to the following conditions:



      Mr Dixit is not a manager or owner of an authorised body or authorised non-SRA firm;

      Mr Dixit is not the sole signatory to any client or office account and does not have sole responsibility for any client or office account or sole responsibility for authorising client or office account transfers;

      Mr Dixit is not a compliance officer for legal practice (COLP) or compliance officer for finance and administration (COFA) for any authorised body, or head of legal practice (HOLP) or head of finance and administration (HOFA) for any authorised non-SRA firm.



      In these conditions the definitions are as defined in the SRA Handbook Glossary 2012.



      Reasons/basisThe above conditions are considered to be necessary in the public interest and reasonable and proportionate having regard to the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 and the regulatory objectives and principles governing regulatory activities as contained in section 28 of the Legal Services Act 2007.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      15/03/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/123012.article?Decision=2018-03-15

      Outcome: Referral to Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis

      Outcome of SDT Hearing

      This notification relates to a Decision to prosecute before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. This is an independent Tribunal which reaches its own decision after considering all the evidence, including any evidence put forward by the Respondent. The Tribunal had certified that there was a case to answer.

      The matter was heard on 18 September 2018.

      Mr. Bartlett was Struck Off the Roll.

      The SDT judgment will be available at www.solicitorstribunal.org.uk

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      14/03/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/026771.article?Decision=2018-03-14

      Outcome: Condition
      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.
      Decision details

      Miss Sabiha Chowdhury is subject to Regulation 3 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011.

      Miss Chowdhury?s practising certificate for 2017/2018 is subject to the following conditions which are necessary, reasonable and proportionate in the public interest:

      Miss Chowdhury may act as a solicitor, only as an employee;
      Miss Chowdhury is not a signatory to any client or office account and does not have the power to authorise any electronic payments or transfers from client or office account;
      Miss Chowdhury shall immediately inform any actual or prospective employer of these conditions and the reasons for their imposition.

      In these conditions the definitions are as defined in the SRA Handbook Glossary 2012.

      Reasons/basis
      The above conditions are considered to be necessary in the public interest and reasonable and proportionate having regard to the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 and the regulatory objectives and principles governing regulatory activities as contained in section 28 of the Legal Services Act 2007.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      14/03/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/476148.article?Decision=2018-03-14

      Outcome: Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal order
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis



      Outcome of SDT Hearing



      This notification relates to a Decision to prosecute before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. This is an independent Tribunal which reaches its own decision after considering all the evidence, including any evidence put forward by the Respondent. The Tribunal had certified that there was a case to answer.

      The matter was heard on 20-21 February 2018 and 14 March 2018.

      Mr. Begum was fined ?5,000.

      The SDT judgment will be available at www.solicitorstribunal.org.uk

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      14/03/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/026771.article?Decision=2018-03-14

      Outcome: Condition
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      Miss Sabiha Chowdhury is subject to Regulation 3 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011.

      Miss Chowdhury?s practising certificate for 2017/2018 is subject to the following conditions which are necessary, reasonable and proportionate in the public interest:



      Miss Chowdhury may act as a solicitor, only as an employee;

      Miss Chowdhury is not a signatory to any client or office account and does not have the power to authorise any electronic payments or transfers from client or office account;

      Miss Chowdhury shall immediately inform any actual or prospective employer of these conditions and the reasons for their imposition.



      In these conditions the definitions are as defined in the SRA Handbook Glossary 2012.



      Reasons/basisThe above conditions are considered to be necessary in the public interest and reasonable and proportionate having regard to the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 and the regulatory objectives and principles governing regulatory activities as contained in section 28 of the Legal Services Act 2007.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      13/03/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/002264.article?Decision=2018-03-13

      Outcome: PC/registration free of conditions
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis



      Outcome of SDT Hearing



      ?The Tribunal Ordered that the Conditions imposed by the Tribunal on 28 September 2012 upon the Applicant, Mr Jonathan Jacobs, be removed as of 13 March 2018.

      The Tribunal was satisfied that it was no longer necessary for the protection of the public or the reputation of the profession to continue to impose a restriction on the Applicant?s practising certificate. Accordingly, the Tribunal granted the Applicant?s application to remove the restriction on his practising certificate.

      The Tribunal determined that as the application was supported by the SRA and was dealt with on the papers.

      The SDT judgment will be available at www.solicitorstribunal.org.uk

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      08/03/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/443884.article?Decision=2018-03-08

      Outcome: PC/registration free of conditions
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details

      Gillian McNulty?s practising certificate for 2017-2018 has been granted free from conditions.

      Reasons/basisThe SRA is satisfied that none of the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 or the regulatory objectives contained in the Legal Services Act 2007 and the principles governing regulatory activities in section 28 of that Act make it necessary in the interests of the public to impose any practising certificate condition.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      08/03/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/118837.article?Decision=2018-03-08

      Outcome: Condition
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      Mr Stuart Kaufman is subject to Regulation 3 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011.

      Mr Kaufman?s practising certificate for 2017/2018 is subject to the following conditions which are necessary, reasonable and proportionate in the public interest:



      Mr Kaufman is not a manager or owner of any authorised body;

      Subject to the condition above, Mr Kaufman may act as a solicitor, only as an employee where the role has first been approved by us;

      Mr Kaufman may not act as a compliance officer for legal practice (COLP) or compliance officer for finance and administration (COFA) for any sole practitioner, authorised body or authorised non-SRA firm;

      Mr Kaufman does not hold, receive or have access to client money, or act as a signatory to any client or office account, or have the power to authorised electronic transfers from any client or office account;

      Mr Kaufman shall immediately inform any actual or prospective employer of these conditions and the reasons for their imposition.



      In these conditions the definitions are as defined in the SRA Handbook Glossary 2012.



      Reasons/basisThe above conditions are considered to be necessary in the public interest and reasonable and proportionate having regard to the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 and the regulatory objectives and principles governing regulatory activities as contained in section 28 of the Legal Services Act 2007.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      07/03/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/131173.article?Decision=2018-03-07

      Outcome: Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal order
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis

      Outcome of SDT Hearing

      This notification relates to a Decision to prosecute before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. This is an independent Tribunal which reaches its own decision after considering all the evidence, including any evidence put forward by the Respondent. The Tribunal had certified that there was a case to answer.

      The matter was heard on 7 March 2018.

      The Tribunal approved an Agreed Outcome.

      Mr. Burman was fined ?5,000.

      The SDT judgment will be available at www.solicitorstribunal.org.uk

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      07/03/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/113440.article?Decision=2018-03-07

      Outcome: Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal order
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis

      Outcome of SDT Hearing

      This notification relates to a Decision to prosecute before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. This is an independent Tribunal which reaches its own decision after considering all the evidence, including any evidence put forward by the Respondent. The Tribunal had certified that there was a case to answer.

      The matter was heard on 7 March 2018.

      The Tribunal approved an Agreed Outcome.

      Mr. Kelly was fined ?7,500.

      The SDT judgment will be available at www.solicitorstribunal.org.uk

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      07/03/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/119636.article?Decision=2018-03-07

      Outcome: Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal order
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis

      Outcome of SDT Hearing

      This notification relates to a Decision to prosecute before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. This is an independent Tribunal which reaches its own decision after considering all the evidence, including any evidence put forward by the Respondent. The Tribunal had certified that there was a case to answer.

      The matter was heard on 7 March 2018.

      The Tribunal approved an Agreed Outcome.

      Mr. Selby was fined ?2,000.

      The SDT judgment will be available at www.solicitorstribunal.org.uk

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      07/03/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/566807.article?Decision=2018-03-07

      Outcome: Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal order
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis



      Outcome of SDT Hearing

      This notification relates to a Decision to prosecute before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. This is an independent Tribunal which reaches its own decision after considering all the evidence, including any evidence put forward by the Respondent. The Tribunal had certified that there was a case to answer.

      The matter was heard on 7 March 2018.

      The Tribunal approved an Agreed Outcome.

      Laytons LLP was fined ?20,000.

      The SDT judgment will be available at www.solicitorstribunal.org.uk

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      05/03/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/135867.article?Decision=2018-11-28

      Outcome: Condition
      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.
      Decision details

      Carl Chapman is subject to Regulation 3 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011. Mr Chapman?s practising certificate for 2017/2018 is subject to the following conditions:

      Mr Chapman is not a sole practitioner or a sole manager or sole owner of an authorised body.
      Mr Chapman is not the sole signatory to any client or office account and does not have sole responsibility for the client or office account or sole responsibility for authorising client or office account transfers.
      Mr Chapman shall not act as Head of Legal Practice (HOLP)/ a Compliance Officer for Legal Practice (COLP) or a Head of Finance and Administration (HOFA)/ a Compliance Officer for Finance and Administration (COFA).

      In these conditions, the terms used are as defined in the SRA Handbook Glossary 2012.

      Reasons/basis
      The above conditions are necessary in the public interest and reasonable and proportionate having regard to the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 and the regulatory objectives and principles governing regulatory activities as contained in section 28 of the Legal Services Act 2007.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      05/03/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/568143.article?Decision=2018-03-05

      Outcome: Fine
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details

      A written rebuke was issued and Slater & Gordon (UK) LLP was ordered to pay a penalty of ?40,000. It was also ordered to pay, with Slater Gordon Solutions Legal Limited, the SRA?s costs of ?26,000, in relation to this matter.

      Reasons/basis



      Slater & Gordon (UK) LLP were found in relation to actions undertaken between December 2014 and February 2015 to have breached Principles 3 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011 by inspecting un-redacted confidential information and documents from 7,087 client matter files of another firm, Quindell Legal Services Limited, without the knowledge or consent of the relevant clients.

      Slater & Gordon (UK) LLP were found to have breached Principles 3 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011 by disclosing un-redacted confidential information and documents from a selection of Quindell Legal Services Limited client matter files to two other firms without the knowledge or consent of the relevant clients.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      05/03/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/591058.article?Decision=2018-03-05

      Outcome: Fine
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details

      A written rebuke was issued and Slater Gordon Solutions Legal Limited was ordered to pay a penalty of ?40,000. It was also ordered to pay, with Slater & Gordon (UK) LLP, the SRA?s costs of ?26,000, in relation to this matter.

      Reasons/basis



      Slater Gordon Solutions Legal Limited (known as Quindell Legal Services Limited at the relevant time) were found in relation to actions undertaken between December 2014 and February 2015 to have breached Principles 4 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011 and failed to achieve Outcome 4.1 (O4.1) of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011 by disclosing un-redacted confidential information and documents from 7,087 client matter files to other firms, without the knowledge or consent of the relevant clients.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      28/02/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/021484.article?Decision=2018-02-28

      Outcome: Referral to Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis

      This notification relates to a Decision to prosecute before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. This is an independent Tribunal which will reach its own decision after considering all the evidence, including any evidence put forward by the Solicitor. The Tribunal has certified that there is a case to answer in respect of allegations which are or include that:

      By virtue of her conviction for Fraud by False Representation under Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006, a criminal offence of dishonestly making false representation to make gain for herself/another or cause loss to other/expose other to risk she:



      failed to uphold the rule of law and the proper administration of justice;

      failed to act with integrity; and

      failed to behave in a way which maintains the trust the public places in her and in the provision of legal services;



      The allegations are subject to a Hearing before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal and are as yet unproven.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      27/02/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/287654.article?Decision=2018-02-27

      Outcome: Condition
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      Madasser Hussain is subject to Regulation 3 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011.

      Ms Hussain?s practising certificate for 2017-2018 is subject to the following conditions:



      Ms Hussain is not a manager or owner of any authorised body;

      Subject to the condition above, Ms Hussain may act as a solicitor, only as an employee where the role has first been approved by us;

      Ms Hussain shall immediately inform any actual or prospective employer of these conditions and the reasons for their imposition.



      In these conditions the definitions are as defined in the SRA Handbook Glossary 2012.



      Reasons/basisThe above conditions are considered to be necessary in the public interest and reasonable and proportionate having regard to the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 and the regulatory objectives and principles governing regulatory activities as contained in Section 28 of the Legal Services Act 2007.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      20/02/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/119048.article?Decision=2018-02-20

      Outcome: PC/registration free of conditions
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      Juliet Bellis is subject to Regulation 3 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011.

      Her practising certificate for 2017/2018 has been issued free from conditions.



      Reasons/basisThe SRA is satisfied that none of the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 or the regulatory objectives contained in the Legal Services Act 2007 and the principles governing regulatory activities in section 28 of that Act make it necessary in the interests of the public to impose any practising certificate condition.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      19/02/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/184528.article?Decision=2018-02-19

      Outcome: Regulatory settlement agreement
      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      19/02/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/184528.article?Decision=2018-02-19

      Outcome: Regulatory settlement agreement
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basisAn RSA dated 19 February 2018 has been entered into by Marie Macfarlane and the SRA, as a result of which Marie Macfarlane has voluntarily removed herself from the Roll of Solicitors.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      19/02/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/511272.article?Decision=2018-02-15

      Outcome: Intervention
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis



      The Adjudication Panel is satisfied that there is reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of Mr Afolayan-Jejeloye in connection with his practice as a solicitor. (Paragraph 1(1)(a)(i) of Schedule 1 of the Solicitors Act 1974), and

      The Adjudication Panel is satisfied that Mr Afolayan-Jejeloye has failed to comply with rules made by the SRA under sections 31, 32 and 37(2)(c) of the Solicitors Act 1974. (Paragraph 1(1)(c) of Schedule 1 of the Solicitors Act 1974).

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      16/02/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/033862.article?Decision=2018-02-16

      Outcome: PC/registration free of conditions
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      Mr Robert Downie was subject to Regulation 3 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011.

      His practising certificate for 2017/2018 has been issued free from conditions.



      Reasons/basisThe SRA is satisfied that none of the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 or the regulatory objectives contained in the Legal Services Act 2007 and the principles governing regulatory activities in section 28 of that Act make it necessary in the interests of the public to impose any practising certificate condition.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      16/02/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/167585.article?Decision=2018-02-16

      Outcome: PC/registration free of conditions
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      Viresh Patel is subject to Regulation 3 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011.

      Mr Patel?s practising certificate for 2017/2018 has been issued free from conditions.



      Reasons/basisThe SRA is satisfied that none of the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 or the regulatory objectives contained in the Legal Services Act 2007 and the principles governing regulatory activities in section 28 of that Act make it necessary in the interests of the public to impose any practising certificate condition.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      15/02/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/128246.article?Decision=2018-07-05

      Outcome: Intervention
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details





      The Panel was satisfied that grounds for intervention existed under Paragraph 1(1)(a) of Schedule 1 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended) namely that there was reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of Richard Clive Hallows in connection with his practice as a solicitor.

      The Panel was satisfied that grounds for intervention existed under Paragraph 1(1)(c) of Schedule 1 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended) as Richard Clive Hallows had failed to comply with the SRA Principles 2011 and the SRA Accounts Rules 2011 (rules made by virtue of Sections 31 and 32 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended)).





      Intervening agents

      Neal Boland of

      Stephensons Solicitors LLP,

      Wigan Investment Centre, Waterside Drive, Wigan, Greater Manchester, WN3 5BA has been appointed as the intervening agent.



      For enquiries please

      call

      or email

      sraenquiries@stephensons.co.uk.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      14/02/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/165150.article?Decision=2018-02-14

      Outcome: Referral to Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis

      This notification relates to a Decision to prosecute before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. This is an independent Tribunal which will reach its own decision after considering all the evidence, including any evidence put forward by the Solicitor. The Tribunal has certified that there is a case to answer in respect of allegations which are or include that :-

      She was convicted on 25 September 2017 of driving a motor vehicle on 29 June 2017 after consuming so much alcohol that her alcohol levels exceeded the prescribed limits, and thereby breached the SRA Principles 2011.

      The allegations are subject to a Hearing before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal and are as yet unproven.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      14/02/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/387310.article?Decision=2018-02-14

      Outcome: Condition
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      Oghogho Emmanuel Osemwingie Ayanru is subject to Regulation 3 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011.

      Mr Ayanru?s practising certificate for 2017/2018 is subject to the following conditions which are necessary, reasonable and proportionate in the public interest:



      Mr Ayanru may not take on the role of manager or owner of an authorised body without the advance approval of the SRA. In the event Mr Ayanru wishes to become a manager or owner of an authorised body, he is required to make an application to the SRA for approval of these roles.

      Mr Ayanru is not to be a Compliance Officer for Legal Practice or a Compliance Officer for Finance and Administration of an authorised body.

      Mr Ayanru shall immediately inform any actual or prospective employer of these conditions and the reasons for their imposition.



      In these conditions the definitions are as defined in the SRA Handbook Glossary 2012.



      Reasons/basisThe above conditions are considered to be necessary in the public interest and reasonable and proportionate having regard to the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 and the regulatory objectives and principles governing regulatory activities as contained in section 28 of the Legal Services Act 2007.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      12/02/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/127663.article?Decision=2018-02-12

      Outcome: Regulatory settlement agreement
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      1. Agreed outcome

      1.1 Paul Kininmonth is the Senior Partner of Catteralls. Mr Kininmonth agrees to the following outcome to the investigation of his conduct by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA):

      (a) he is severely reprimanded

      (b) this agreement will be published

      (c) he will pay the costs of the investigation of ?1,350.



      Reasons/basis

      2. Summary of Facts

      2.1 Catteralls had been instructed in 1991 to give effect to Ms X's brother's will by transferring the properties to Ms X and Mr Y. Catteralls failed to do this and the properties remained in the joint names of Ms X and her brother.

      2.2 In August 2006 Ms X instructed Catteralls to act for her in relation to a loan from the bank to Mr Y. Ms X was to provide a charge over her properties to secure the loan for Mr Y. Catteralls acted for Ms X, Mr Y and the bank.

      2.3 A locum solicitor working for Catteralls carried out the work. The locum solicitor did not provide all the required advice to Ms X about the risks and consequences of signing the charge.

      2.4 On 22 August 2006, Mr Kininmonth, who was Ms X and Mr Y's usual solicitor, returned from holiday. The locum gave him:

      (a) an undated charge deed which had been signed by Ms X and Mr Y and witnessed by the locum.

      (b) a certificate of execution which the locum had signed. The certificate confirmed to the bank that the locum had independently advised Ms X of the risks involved, that she understood the nature and consequences of the charge, and that she entered into it willingly.

      2.5 Mr Kininmonth dated the charge and the certificate of execution on 23 August 2006. On 23 and 25 August 2006 the bank released the loan monies to Mr Y. On 25 August 2006 the bank instructed Mr Kininmonth to register the charge at the Land Registry.

      2.6 Mr Kininmonth then discovered that the locum had not taken all of the necessary steps to establish the ownership and that the properties were therefore still in the names of Ms X and her brother.

      2.7 On 4 July 2008 Mr Kininmonth asked Ms X and Mr Y to sign a transfer of the properties into their joint names, which they did. Mr Kininmonth re-dated the charge signed by Ms X and Mr Y in 2006 with the date 4 July 2008. He did not obtain authority to re-date the charge.

      2.8 Mr Kininmonth did not advise:

      (a) Ms X or Mr Y that they should each obtain independent legal advice

      (b) Ms X about the potential adverse consequences for her of the transaction

      3. Admissions

      3.1 Mr Kininmonth makes the following admissions, and the SRA accepts that, in breach of:

      (a) Rule 1.01 (a) and (c) of the Guide to the Professional Conduct of Solicitors 1999 (the Guide), he compromised his independence and his duty to act in the best interests of each client by not advising Ms X, Mr Y or the bank that:

      (i) they each had a potential negligence claim against the firm.

      (ii) his firm could no longer act in the matter due to an own interest conflict; and

      each client should take independent legal advice.

      (b) Rule 15.04 of the Guide, he continued to act for Ms X, Mr Y and the bank from 25 August 2006, despite knowing that each of them had potential negligence claims against the firm, and that the clients' interests therefore conflicted with his own.

      (c) Rule 3.01 (1) of the Solicitors Code of Conduct 2007 (the Code), he acted in a conflict of interest, because it was in:

      (i) Ms X's interest for the charge to remain unregistered.

      (ii) Mr Y's interest to argue his debt was unsecured.

      (iii) the bank's interest for Mr Y's debt to be secured against the properties.

      (d) Rule 1.04 of the Code he failed to act in Ms X's best interests because he:

      (a) continued to act for Ms X, Mr Y and the bank despite their interests conflicting with each other.

      (b) did not explain to Ms X and Mr Y that their position had changed since the 2006 charge was signed.

      (c) did not explain to Ms X that there could be adverse consequences for her of signing the charge.

      (d) did not tell Ms X or Mr Y that he could not act for them and advise about the changed position and potential consequences because of a conflict of interest.

      (e) did not tell Ms X and Mr Y that they should take independent legal advice.



      4. Why the agreed outcome is appropriate

      4.1 The SRA considers that the agreed outcome is appropriate because it is a proportionate outcome taking the following mitigating features into consideration:

      (a) The admissions made by Mr Kininmonth.

      (b) Mr Kininmonth has co-operated fully with the SRA?s investigation.

      (c) Mr Kininmonth?s previous unblemished regulatory history.

      (d) The time that has elapsed since the misconduct occurred.

      (e) Significant personal mitigation that has been presented by Mr Kininmonth including the significant impact on his health.

      4.2 The conduct occurred between August 2006 and June 2008, so it is appropriate to agree an outcome which the SRA or its predecessor body could have imposed at that time.

      4.3 A severe reprimand could be imposed where there had been a serious breach.

      4.4 The impact of the misconduct was taken into account when deciding whether the breach was serious enough to warrant a severe reprimand.

      4.5 A breach was sufficiently serious for a reprimand or a severe reprimand if either:

      (a) there had been serious adverse consequences in terms of distress, damage or loss; or

      (b) the potential effect of the breach was serious.

      4.6 Ms X has suffered serious distress as a result of issues arising from Mr Kininmonth's conduct.

      4.7 Ms X has incurred legal costs as a result of Mr Kininmonth's conduct, some of which she has been unable to recover.

      4.8 Mr Kininmonth's conduct has therefore had serious adverse consequences in terms of distress and loss.



      5. Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this Agreement



      5.1 Mr Kininmonth agrees that he will not act in any way which is inconsistent with this agreement such as, for example, by denying the admissions made in this agreement.

      5.2 If Mr Kininmonth acts in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement, the SRA may consider further the conduct which is subject to this agreement. That may result in a disciplinary outcome or a referral to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal on the original facts and allegations. Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement may also constitute a separate breach of Principles 2, 6 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2011.

      6. Costs

      6.1 Mr Kininmonth agrees to pay the SRA's costs of its investigation in the sum of ?1,350. Such costs are due within 28 days of the SRA issuing a statement of costs.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      09/02/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/366193.article?Decision=2018-02-09

      Outcome: PC/registration free of conditions
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      Mr Emeti is subject to Regulation 3 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011.

      Mr Cosmas Chuka Emeti?s practising certificate for 2017/2018 has been issued free from conditions.



      Reasons/basisThe SRA is satisfied that none of the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 or the regulatory objectives contained in the Legal Services Act 2007 and the principles governing regulatory activities in section 28 of that Act make it necessary in the interests of the public to impose any practising certificate condition.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      09/02/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/155413.article?Decision=2018-02-09

      Outcome: Condition
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      Mr Stephen Alexander is subject to Regulation 3 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011.

      Mr Alexander?s practising certificate for 2017/2018 is subject to the following conditions which are necessary, reasonable and proportionate in the public interest:



      Mr Alexander is not a manager or owner of any authorised body;

      Subject to the condition above, Mr Alexander may act as a solicitor, only as an employee where the role has first been approved by us.



      In these conditions the definitions are as defined in the SRA Handbook Glossary 2012.



      Reasons/basisThe above conditions are considered to be necessary in the public interest and reasonable and proportionate having regard to the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 and the regulatory objectives and principles governing regulatory activities as contained in section 28 of the Legal Services Act 2007.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      09/02/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/082552.article?Decision=2018-02-09

      Outcome: Intervention
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details

      Decision to intervene into practice.

      Reasons/basisThe Adjudication Panel is satisfied that Mr Astill has failed to comply with rules made by the SRA (Paragraph 1(1)(c) of Schedule 1 of the Solicitors Act 1974); and

      The Adjudication Panel is satisfied that intervention is necessary to protect the interests of clients and beneficiaries of Mr Astill. (Paragraph 1(1)(m) of Schedule 1 of the Solicitors Act 1974). Intervening agentsMarion Vesey of

      Shacklocks LLP,

      St Peter's House, Bridge Street, Mansfield, NG18 1AL has been appointed as the intervening agent.



      For enquiries please

      call

      01623 423073 or email

      interventionastill@shacklocks.co.uk .

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      07/02/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/118319.article?Decision=2018-02-07

      Outcome: Condition
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      Mr Brian Hoffman is subject to Regulation 3 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011.

      Mr Hoffman?s practising certificate for 2017/2018 has been granted subject to the following conditions:



      Mr Hoffman is not a sole manager or sole owner of any authorised body.

      Mr Hoffman may not act as a Compliance Officer for Legal Practice (COLP) or Compliance Officer for Finance and Administration (COFA) for any authorised body.



      In these conditions the definitions are as defined in the SRA Handbook Glossary 2012.



      Reasons/basisThe above conditions are considered to be necessary in the public interest and reasonable and proportionate having regard to the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 and the regulatory objectives and principles governing regulatory activities as contained in Section 28 of the Legal Services Act 2007.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      07/02/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/549940.article?Decision=2018-02-07

      Outcome: Condition
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      Ms Jawaria Ayaz?s practising certificate for 2017/2018 is subject to the following conditions which are necessary, reasonable and proportionate in the public interest:



      With effect from 7 May 2018 Ms Ayaz may not act as a compliance officer for legal practice (COLP) or a compliance officer for finance and administration (COFA) for any authorised body.

      Ms Ayaz shall not have responsibility for, or be involved in, the training or supervision of any employee.

      Mrs Ayaz will immediately inform any actual or prospective employer of these conditions and the reasons for their imposition.



      For definitions, please refer to the defined terms set out in the SRA Handbook Glossary 2012.



      Reasons/basisThese conditions are imposed having regard to the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011, to the regulatory objectives contained in the Legal Services Act 2007 and the principles governing regulatory activities in section 28 of that Act.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      06/02/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/184193.article?Decision=2018-02-06

      Outcome: Condition
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      Graham Jamieson is subject to Regulation 3 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011.

      Graham Jamieson?s practising certificate for 2017/2018 has been granted subject to the following conditions which are necessary, reasonable and proportionate in the public interest:



      Mr Jamieson may not act as a manager or owner of any authorised body.

      Mr Jamieson does not hold, receive or have access to client monies; nor act as a signatory to any client or office account, or have the power to authorise electronic payments or transfers from any client or office account, save for the dealing with any matters relating to his former practice Jamieson & Co (SRA 361527).

      Mr Jamieson shall immediately inform any actual or prospective employer of these conditions and the reasons for their imposition.

      In these conditions the definitions are as defined in the SRA Handbook Glossary 2012.





      Reasons/basisThe above conditions are considered to be necessary in the public interest and reasonable and proportionate having regard to the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 and the regulatory objectives and principles governing regulatory activities as contained in section 28 of the Legal Services Act 2007.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      02/02/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/122323.article?Decision=2018-02-02

      Outcome: Approval of employment (section 41)
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      Affinity Seven Law Solicitors Ltd have been granted permission under Section 41 of the Solicitors Act 1974 to employ Mr Vincent Howard Wilkes, subject to the following conditions:



      Mr Wilkes does not hold, receive or have access to client money, or act as signatory to any client or office account, or have the power to authorise electronic transfers from any client or office account.

      Mr Wilkes is not to hold himself out as a solicitor and must use the job title of ?litigation executive? or ?legal manager?.

      Mr Wilkes? name does not appear on the firm?s headed notepaper, publicity material, website or external nameplates, save that Mr Wilkes is not precluded from having business cards bearing the firm?s contact details with his name and job title.

      Mr Wilkes shall not supervise any other employee at Affinity Seven Law Solicitors Ltd.

      The SRA is immediately informed of any proposed variation in Mr Wilkes? duties, job title or his supervision arrangements, prior to any such variation being made.

      This approval and the conditions attached to it are subject to review at the absolute discretion of the SRA.





      Reasons/basisMr Wilkes was struck off the roll of solicitors on 29 May 2001. In accordance with Section 41 of the Solicitors Act 1974, any solicitor wishing to employ or remunerate him in connection with their practise as a solicitor must obtain the SRA's approval. The SRA is satisfied that the above employment will not put public confidence in the administration of justice and the provision of legal services or the interests of clients at risk.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      01/02/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/123001.article?Decision=2018-10-08

      Outcome: Condition
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      Mr Patrick Kelly is subject to Regulation 3 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011.

      Mr Kelly?s practising certificate for 2017/2018 is subject to the following conditions which are necessary, reasonable and proportionate in the public interest:



      Mr Kelly is not a manager or owner of an authorised body or authorised non-SRA firm.



      In these conditions the definitions are as defined in the SRA Handbook Glossary 2012.



      Reasons/basisThe above conditions are considered to be necessary in the public interest and reasonable and proportionate having regard to the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 and the regulatory objectives and principles governing regulatory activities as contained in section 28 of the Legal Services Act 2007.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      01/02/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/107677.article?Decision=2018-02-01

      Outcome: Condition
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      Mr Andrew Geoffrey Smithson is subject to Regulations 3 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011.

      Mr Smithson's practising certificate for 2017/2018 has been granted subject to the following conditions which are necessary, reasonable and proportionate in the public interest:



      Andrew Geoffrey Smithson may not act as a manager or owner of any authorised body.



      In these conditions the definitions are as defined in the SRA Handbook Glossary 2012.



      Reasons/basis

      The above conditions are considered to be necessary in the public interest and reasonable and proportionate having regard to the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 and the regulatory objectives and principles governing regulatory activities as contained in section 28 of the Legal Services Act 2007.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      30/01/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/353764.article?Decision=2018-01-30

      Outcome: Condition
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      The suspension of Naomi Bentley-Lawson's practising certificate for 2017/2018 is terminated subject to the following conditions:



      Ms Bentley-Lawson is not a manager or owner of any authorised

      body or authorised non-SRA firm.

      Ms Bentley-Lawson can only authorise transfers to and from a firm's client account while under the supervision of a compliance officer or manager of the firm.



      In these conditions the definitions are as defined in the SRA Handbook Glossary 2012.



      Reasons/basis

      Ms Bentley-Lawson was adjudged bankrupt by the County Court on 25 January 2018. Her 2017/2018 practising certificate was automatically suspended as a result.

      The above conditions are considered to be necessary in the public interest and reasonable and proportionate having regard to the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 and the regulatory objectives and principles governing regulatory activities as contained in section 28 of the Legal Services Act 2007.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      26/01/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/002264.article?Decision=2018-03-13

      Outcome: PC/registration free of conditions
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      Mr Jonathan Jacobs? practising certificate for 2017/2018 has been issued free from conditions.

      ?



      Reasons/basis

      The SRA is satisfied that none of the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 or the regulatory objectives contained in the Legal Services Act 2007 and the principles governing regulatory activities in section 28 of that Act make it necessary in the interests of the public to impose any practising certificate condition.

      On 28 September 2012 the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal imposed an order prohibiting Mr Jacobs from being able to practise as a sole practitioner, a partner, or a member of a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP), Legal Disciplinary Practice (LDP) or Alternative Business Structure (ABS).

      Whilst conditions have not been imposed on Mr Jacobs? 2017/2018 practising certificate, his ability to practise remains subject to the Tribunal?s order outlined above, until such time when he applies directly to the Tribunal to have it varied or removed.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      25/01/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/114047.article?Decision=2018-01-25

      Outcome: PC/registration free of conditions
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      Mr Gore was subject to Regulation 3 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011.

      Mr Gore?s practising certificate for 2017/2018 has been granted free from conditions.



      Reasons/basis

      The SRA is satisfied that none of the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 or the regulatory objectives contained in the Legal Services Act 2007 and the principles governing regulatory activities in section 28 of that Act make it necessary in the interests of the public to impose any practising certificate condition.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      25/01/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/474123.article?Decision=2018-01-25

      Outcome: Referral to Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis

      This notification relates to a Decision to prosecute before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. This is an independent Tribunal which will reach its own decision after considering all the evidence, including any evidence put forward by the Solicitor. The Tribunal has certified that there is a case to answer in respect of allegations which are or include that:

      Between 8 April 2016 and 9 September 2016 he accepted referrals from and authorised payments for referrals in the sum of between ?207,900 and ?215,600 to LCHL when he knew or ought to have known that LCHL was not authorised by the Ministry of Justice nor exempt from authorisation.

      The allegations are subject to a Hearing before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal and are as yet unproven.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      25/01/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/139352.article?Decision=2018-01-25

      Outcome: Referral to Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis

      This notification relates to a Decision to prosecute before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. This is an independent Tribunal which will reach its own decision after considering all the evidence, including any evidence put forward by the Solicitor. The Tribunal has certified that there is a case to answer in respect of allegations which are or include:

      Failure to have sufficient regard to the Money Laundering Regulations 2007 and / or the Solicitors Regulation Authority?s warning notices on money laundering.

      The allegations are subject to a Hearing before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal and are as yet unproven.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      24/01/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/229195.article?Decision=2018-01-24

      Outcome: Condition
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      Mr Nicholas is subject to Regulations 3 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011.

      Mr Nicholas? practising certificate for 2017/2018 has been granted subject to the following conditions which are necessary, reasonable and proportionate in the public interest:



      Mr Nicholas does not hold, receive or have access to client money, or act as a signatory to any client account, or have the power to authorise electronic transfers from any client account.



      In these conditions the definitions are as defined in the SRA Handbook Glossary 2012.



      Reasons/basisThe above conditions are considered to be necessary in the public interest and reasonable and proportionate having regard to the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 and the regulatory objectives and principles governing regulatory activities as contained in section 28 of the Legal Services Act 2007.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      24/01/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/301078.article?Decision=2018-01-24

      Outcome: Condition
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      Ms McDonald is subject to Regulations 3 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011.

      Ms McDonald's practising certificate for 2017/2018 has been granted subject to the following conditions which are necessary, reasonable and proportionate in the public interest:



      Ms McDonald is not sole manager or sole owner of an authorised body.

      In the event Ms McDonald wishes to become a manger or owner of an authorised body, save for a sole manager or sole owner, she is required to make an application to the SRA for approval of these roles. Ms McDonald may not take on the role of manager or owner of an authorised body without the advance approval of the SRA.



      In these conditions the definitions are as defined in the SRA Handbook Glossary 2012.



      Reasons/basisThe above conditions are considered to be necessary in the public interest and reasonable and proportionate having regard to the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 and the regulatory objectives and principles governing regulatory activities as contained in section 28 of the Legal Services Act 2007.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      24/01/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/116719.article?Decision=2018-01-24

      Outcome: Condition
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      Ian Cocker is subject to Regulations 3 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011.

      Ian Cocker?s practising certificate for 2017/2018 has been granted subject to the following condition which is necessary, reasonable and proportionate in the public interest:



      Mr Cocker may not act as a manager or owner of any authorised body.



      In this condition the definitions are as defined in the SRA Handbook Glossary 2012.



      Reasons/basisThe above condition is considered to be necessary in the public interest and reasonable and proportionate having regard to the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 and the regulatory objectives and principles governing regulatory activities as contained in section 28 of the Legal Services Act 2007.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      23/01/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/641850.article?Decision=2018-01-23

      Outcome: Control of non-qualified staff (section 43 order)
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      1. Agreed outcome



      1.1 Mrs Therese Ann Castleman is a former employee of authorised body Sharpe Pritchard LLP. Ms Castleman agrees to the following outcome to the investigation of her conduct by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA):

      to the SRA making an under section 43 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (a Section 43 Order) in relation to Mrs Therese Ann Castleman that, from the date of this agreement:

      no solicitor shall employ or remunerate her in connection with his practice as a solicitorno employee of a solicitor shall employ or remunerate her in connection with the solicitor's practiceno recognised body shall employ or remunerate herno manager or employee of a recognised body shall employ or remunerate her in connection with the business of that bodyno recognised body or manager or employee of such a body shall permit her to be a manager of the bodyno recognised body or manager or employee of such body shall permit her to have an interest in the body





      except in accordance with the SRA's prior permission.to the publication of this agreement she will pay the costs of the investigation of ?300.



      2. Summary of Facts



      2.1 On 22 September 2015 Mrs Castleman was convicted of theft at Central London Magistrates Court. She stole three Apple iPhones to the value of ?1,950 belonging to her former employer the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT).

      2.2 Mrs Castleman received a community order requiring her to carry out 80 hours of unpaid work and was ordered to pay costs of ?325.

      2.3 Mrs Castleman's conviction is for an offence involving dishonesty.



      3. Why the agreed outcome is appropriate



      3.1 The SRA and Mrs Castleman agree that a Section 43 Order is appropriate because:



      Mrs Castleman is not a solicitorby virtue of her employment or remuneration at Sharpe Pritchard LLP she was involved in a legal practiceshe has been convicted of an offence which makes it undesirable for her to be involved in a legal practice.

      3.2 The offence makes it undesirable for Mrs Castleman to be involved in a legal practice because the offence



      involves dishonestyis likely to undermine public confidence in the delivery of legal serviceswas conducted in the course of Mrs Castleman?s employment at the SDT.

      3.3 The SRA considers it appropriate that this agreement is published in the interests of transparency in the regulatory and disciplinary process.



      4. Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this Agreement



      4.1 Mrs Castleman agrees that she will not act in any way which is inconsistent with this agreement such as, for example, by denying responsibility for the conduct referred to above.



      5. Costs



      5.1 Mrs Castleman agrees to pay the costs of the SRA's investigation in the sum of ?300. Such costs are due within 28 days of a statement of costs due being issued by the SRA.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      23/01/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/106176.article?Decision=2018-01-23

      Outcome: Condition
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      Mr Kelsall is subject to Regulation 3 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011.

      Mr Kelsall?s practising certificate for 2017/2018 has been granted subject to the following condition which is necessary, reasonable and proportionate in the public interest:



      Mr Kelsall may not act as a compliance officer for finance and

      administration (COFA) for any authorised body.



      In this condition the definitions are as defined in the SRA Handbook Glossary 2012.



      Reasons/basisThe above condition is considered to be necessary in the public interest and reasonable and proportionate having regard to the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 and the regulatory objectives and principles governing regulatory activities as contained in section 28 of the Legal Services Act 2007.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      19/01/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/395381.article?Decision=2018-01-19

      Outcome: Intervention
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details

      To intervene into the practice of Jonathan Ippazio De Vita at Quality Solicitors De Vita Platt.

      Reasons/basis



      Mr De Vita has failed to comply with rules made by the SRA under section 32 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (Solicitors Act 1974, Schedule 1, Part I, paragraph 1(1)(c)); and

      It is necessary to intervene to protect the interests of clients and former clients of Mr De Vita.





      Intervening agents

      John Owen of

      Gordons LLP,

      Forward House, 8 Duke St. Bradford, BD1 3QX has been appointed as the intervening agent.



      For enquiries please

      call

      01274 703916 or email

      intervention@gordonsllp.com.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      19/01/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/385108.article?Decision=2018-01-19

      Outcome: PC/registration free of conditions
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      Stephen Kennedy is subject to Regulations 3 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011.

      Stephen Kennedy's practising certificate for 2017/2018 has been granted free from conditions.



      Reasons/basis

      The SRA is satisfied that none of the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 or the regulatory objectives contained in the Legal Services Act 2007 and the principles governing regulatory activities in section 28 of that Act make it necessary in the interests of the public to impose any practising certificate condition.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      19/01/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/116620.article?Decision=2018-01-19

      Outcome: Condition
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      John Thomas Elwy Owens is subject to Regulation 3 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011.

      Mr Owens? practising certificate for 2017/2018 has been granted subject to the following conditions, which are necessary, reasonable and proportionate in the public interest:



      Mr Owens shall not be a manager or owner of an authorised body without the prior approval of the SRA. This condition shall not apply to his current role as the sole practitioner of JOS John Owens Solicitors.

      Mr Owens must provide to the SRA on a monthly basis the reconciliations required by Rule 29 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011 for his recognised sole practice, JOS John Owen Solicitors.

      Mr Owens must obtain six monthly accountants reports for his recognised sole practice, JOS John Owen Solicitors. The first report shall cover the period 1 May to 31 October 2016. Each report must be obtained within 30 days from the end of the relevant six-month accounting period and must be delivered to the SRA within 14 days.



      In these conditions, the definitions are as defined in the SRA Handbook Glossary 2012.



      Reasons/basis

      The above conditions are considered to be necessary in the public interest and reasonable and proportionate having regard to the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 and the regulatory objectives and principles governing regulatory activities as contained in section 28 of the Legal Services Act 2007.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      19/01/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/432386.article?Decision=2018-01-19

      Outcome: Intervention
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details

      To intervene into the practice of Christopher John Platt at Quality Solicitors De Vita Platt.

      Reasons/basis



      Mr Platt has failed to comply with rules made by the SRA under section 32 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (Solicitors Act 1974, Schedule 1, Part I, paragraph 1(1)(c)); and

      It is necessary to intervene to protect the interests of clients and former clients of Mr Platt.





      Intervening agents

      John Owen of

      Gordons LLP,

      Forward House, 8 Duke St. Bradford, BD1 3QX has been appointed as the intervening agent.



      For enquiries please

      call

      01274 703916 or email

      intervention@gordonsllp.com.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      19/01/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/533579.article?Decision=2018-01-19

      Outcome: Intervention
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details

      To intervene into the firm Quality Solicitors De Vita Platt.

      Reasons/basis





      The firm has failed to comply with the SRA Accounts Rules 2011 which are rules applicable to it by virtue of Section 9 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (paragraph 32 (1)(a) Schedule 2, Administration of Justice Act 1985); and

      it is necessary to intervene to protect the interests of the firm's clients or former clients (paragraph 32(1)(e) Schedule 2, Administration of Justice Act 1985.







      Intervening agents

      John Owen of

      Gordons,

      Forward House, 8 Duke St. Bradford, BD1 3QX has been appointed as the intervening agent.



      For enquiries please

      call

      01274 703916 or email

      intervention@gordonsllp.com.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      17/01/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/023852.article?Decision=2018-01-17

      Outcome: Condition
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      Mr Dhariwal is subject to Regulations 3 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011.

      Mr Dhariwal?s practising certificate for 2017/2018 has been granted subject to the following conditions which are necessary, reasonable and proportionate in the public interest:



      In the event Mr Dhariwal wishes to become a manager or owner of an authorised body, other than LawCommercial Trading Limited (SRA ID: 623098), he is required to make an application to the SRA for prior approval of these roles.

      Mr Dhariwal may not act as a compliance officer for legal practice (COLP) or compliance officer for finance and administration (COFA) for any authorised body.



      In these conditions the definitions are as defined in the SRA Handbook Glossary 2012.



      Other information

      The above conditions are considered to be necessary in the public interest and reasonable and proportionate having regard to the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 and the regulatory objectives and principles governing regulatory activities as contained in section 28 of the Legal Services Act 2007.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      17/01/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/153709.article?Decision=2018-01-17

      Outcome: Condition
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      Andrew Gilmore is subject to Regulations 3 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011.

      Andrew Gilmore?s practising certificate for 2017/2018 has been granted subject to the following condition which is necessary, reasonable and proportionate in the public interest:





      Mr Gilmore does not hold, receive or have access to clients' money and he is not a signatory to any office or client account cheque.



      In this condition the definitions are as defined in the SRA Handbook Glossary 2012.



      Reasons/basisThe above condition is considered to be necessary in the public interest and reasonable and proportionate having regard to the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 and the regulatory objectives and principles governing regulatory activities as contained in section 28 of the Legal Services Act 2007.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      17/01/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/388387.article?Decision=2018-01-17

      Outcome: PC/registration free of conditions
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      Mr James Smith-Wilds is subject to Regulation 3 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011.

      His practising certificate for 2017/2018 has been granted free from conditions.





      Reasons/basis

      The SRA is satisfied that none of the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 or the regulatory objectives contained in the Legal Services Act 2007 and the principles governing regulatory activities in section 28 of that Act make it necessary in the interests of the public to impose any practising certificate condition.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      15/01/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/332663.article?Decision=2018-01-15

      Outcome: Referral to Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis

      This notification relates to a Decision to prosecute before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. This is an independent Tribunal which will reach its own decision after considering all the evidence, including any evidence put forward by the Solicitor. The Tribunal has certified that there is a case to answer in respect of allegations which are or include that:



      Whilst travelling on Virgin East Coast services between London Kings Cross and Peterborough on 26 January 2016, he presented a travel card marked ?Dependant" to a ticket (revenue) inspector, which had been mistakenly issued in his name by Transport for London (TFL) and altered by him. In doing so, he attempted to mislead the ticket inspector that his travel card for the journey was valid.

      Whilst travelling on Virgin East Coast services between London Kings Cross and Peterborough on 27 January 2016, he presented a travel card issue by TFL marked ?Staff? to a ticket (revenue) inspector, which could only be used for leisure journeys, when the purpose of his journey was commuting from work. In doing so, he attempted to mislead the ticket inspector that his travel card for the journey was valid.

      Whilst travelling on Virgin East Coast services between London Kings Cross and Peterborough on 27 January 2016, a revenue (ticket) inspector confiscated a season ticket from the Respondent in which the expiry date had been altered from 16 June 2015 to 16 June 2016.



      The allegations are subject to a Hearing before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal and are as yet unproven.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      11/01/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/379476.article?Decision=2018-01-11

      Outcome: PC/registration free of conditions
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details

      Mrs Gray?s practising certificate for 2017/2018 has been granted free from conditions.

      Reasons/basisThe SRA is satisfied that none of the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 or the regulatory objectives contained in the Legal Services Act 2007 and the principles governing regulatory activities in section 28 of that Act make it necessary in the interests of the public to impose any practising certificate condition.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      11/01/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/106378.article?Decision=2018-01-11

      Outcome: Condition
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      Andrew Pascoe is subject to Regulation 3 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011.

      Andrew Pascoe's practising certificate for 2017/2018 has been granted subject to the following conditions which are necessary, reasonable and proportionate in the public interest:



      Mr Pascoe may only act as a solicitor in employment. That employment must first be approved by the SRA.

      Mr Pascoe is not a manager or owner of an authorised body.

      Mr Pascoe may not act as a compliance officer for legal practice (COLP) or compliance officer for finance and administration (COFA) for any authorised body.

      Mr Pascoe may not hold client money or be a signatory on any client account cheques or other banking instruments whether in electronic or paper form.



      In these conditions the definitions are as defined in the SRA Handbook Glossary 2012.





      Reasons/basis

      The above conditions are considered to be necessary in the public interest and reasonable and proportionate having regard to the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 and the regulatory objectives and principles governing regulatory activities as contained in section 28 of the Legal Services Act 2007.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      10/01/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/147134.article?Decision=2018-09-17

      Outcome: Rebuke
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis

      On the 5 January 2017, an SRA Adjudicator found that Ms White:



      Failed to carry out client account reconciliations at least every five weeks in accordance with Rule 29.12 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011.

      Failed to cooperate with the SRA in breach of Principle 7 of the SRA Principles 2011.

      As the firm's compliance officer for finance and administration, failed to take all reasonable steps to



      ensure compliance with Rule 29.12 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011 and record any failures to comply with the SRA Accounts Rules 2011. At the time of the above conduct Ms White was the sole principal of the firm, Debridge Solicitors whose head office is at 52 Lower Clapton Road, Hackney, London, E5 0RN. She continues to practise as the sole principal of this firm.





      ?



      Ms. White received a written rebuke and was ordered to pay a financial penalty of ?2,000.

      Ms. White appealed the decision of the Adjudicator.

      On 30 May 2017, the Chair of the SRA Adjudicators considered an appeal against the decision made by the Adjudicator on 5 January 2017. It upheld the decision of the Adjudicator on 5 January 2017.

      Ms. White appealed that decision.

      On 10 January 2018, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) considered Ms White?s appeal against the decision of the chair of the SRA Adjudication Panel dated 30 May 2017 which upheld the decision of the Adjudicator dated 5 January 2017.

      The SDT dismissed Ms White?s appeal and affirmed the decision of the Adjudication Panel dated 5 January 2017.

      The SDT judgment will be available at www.solicitorstribunal.org.uk.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      09/01/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/424940.article?Decision=2018-01-09

      Outcome: Regulatory settlement agreement
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details





      Simpson Millar LLP, of 21-27 St Pauls Street, Leeds LS1 2JG (?the firm?) agrees to the following outcome of the investigation into its professional conduct.

      Background

      The Forensic Investigation Department (?FI?) of the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) commenced an inspection of the firm?s books of accounts and produced a Report dated 2 April 2012 (?The Report?). The SRA subsequently undertook further investigations into complaints made against the firm concerning similar matters to those which were the subject of the Report, and letters were sent to the firm, pursuant to the SRA Disciplinary Procedure Rules 2011 inviting its response to concerns, on 5 February 2013, 9 September 2014and 5 October 2016.

      During the course of the SRA?s investigation, the firm provided details of the conveyancing transactions in which its clients used Stamp Duty Land Tax (?SDLT?) mitigation or avoidance schemes.

      The promoters of the schemes were Professional Advice Bureau Limited, Innovative Tax Solutions Limited, Inventive Tax Strategies Limited, and Sterling Tax Strategies Limited.

      Between April 2009 and January 2011, the firm undertook 234 conveyancing transactions where clients had been a party to a SDLT scheme to avoid paying stamp duty land tax. This initially resulted in the non payment of at least ?4,570,291 to HM Revenue and Customs.

      The firm received, in addition to its usual conveyancing fee, amounts from promoters and clients for implementing the scheme and preparing documents to effect the schemes. The firm received ?151,989.45 including VAT from the promoters of the schemes, and ?203,238.38 including VAT from purchaser clients.

      The firm implemented the following schemes:



      ?Husband and wife? scheme: 154 transactions;

      Unlimited company scheme: 44 transactions;

      Nominee scheme: 32 transactions.



      The firm was unable to identify which scheme was used in an additional four transactions.

      In 208 of the schemes implemented by the firm the purchaser clients had obtained mortgages to assist with the purchases.

      The Firm provided advice to other firms of solicitors in respect of at least 80 additional transactions involving SDLT mitigation schemes, and received payments from the scheme promotors of ?34,307.66 for doing so.

      The major schemes used

      Husband and wife scheme

      The Firm undertook 154 conveyancing transactions using this scheme, under which two contracts were executed, including a sale to a single individual and then a sub-sale at lower value to another individual, and the creation of a trust involving the individual parties holding unequal percentages of the beneficial interest in the property.

      The effect of the scheme was that the property was held by the spouses on trust such that one spouse had a small percentage of the beneficial interest and one spouse held a much larger percentage of the beneficial interest.

      Lenders providing mortgage funds for the purchases were not informed of the use of the scheme, that mortgage monies were used by one borrower only, of the existence of two transactions, or of the basis upon which the equity in properties was divided.



      Purchaser clients were not advised of potential risks arising from the use of the scheme, including risks arising from the way in which the property would be held on completion.



      Unlimited company scheme

      The Firm undertook 44 conveyancing transactions using this scheme.

      The users set up a special purpose vehicle (?the unlimited company?), whose specific purpose was to buy the property from the seller. The buyers would be the sole shareholders and have control of the company. The funds generated by the buyers? share subscriptions were used by the company to facilitate the purchase.



      The buyers then wound up the company, with a repayment of capital made by way of distribution of assets to its shareholders, namely the buyers, simultaneously with completion of the purchase. The firm reported the second transaction (the transfer of the property from the unlimited company to the shareholders) as a distribution of assets, and therefore not subject to SDLT.



      Lenders providing mortgage funds for the purchases were not informed of the use or nature and effect of the scheme, or that funds provided for the purposes of the purchase would be held on trust for the unlimited company rather than the lender.



      Purchaser clients were not advised of potential risks arising from the use of the scheme, including risks arising from the way in which the property would be held on completion.



      Nominee scheme

      The Firm undertook 32 conveyancing transactions using this scheme.

      Under this scheme, a nominee company would exchange contracts to purchase a property, and make a substantial deposit payment to the seller, under a contract which prevented the nominee from completing the purchase but allowed for assignment of the contract by the nominee. The buyer completed the contract, paying the excess sum above the original deposit to the seller; the only ?land transaction? (if the scheme were effective) would be for that element, attracting a lower rate of SDLT.



      Lenders providing mortgage funds for the purchases were not informed of the use or nature and effect of the scheme.



      Purchaser clients were not advised of potential risks arising from the use of the scheme, including risks arising from the way in which the property would be held on completion.



      Use of the schemes

      The principal aim was not only to convey title but also to enable the purchaser client to either avoid or minimise paying SDLT.

      HMRC issued technical newsletters in August 2007 and June 2010, which demonstrated that HMRC did not consider the schemes to be legitimate tax avoidance schemes especially since the introduction of anti-avoidance legislation in December 2006.



      Acting in clients? best interests

      The firm had an obligation to disclose to its lender clients all information material to each matter.

      The firm further had an obligation to disclose to purchaser clients the risks arising from the use of schemes seeking to avoid or minimise SDLT liabilities.



      Handling of purchaser clients? monies

      On three matters involving use of the Husband & Wife scheme, the Firm caused or allowed sums provided by purchaser clients to be paid to scheme promoters without the knowledge or agreement of the clients, who believed that sums were being retained by the firm as a contingency against claims for payment by HMRC.



      Lender clients

      In 208 of the matters the firm also acted for the mortgage provider (?the lenders?).

      The firm did not tell the lenders that purchaser clients were using a SDLT scheme to avoid paying stamp duty land tax and did not tell the lenders how the transactions were structured.

      The firm did not give information to the lenders which was material to decisions as to whether to proceed with the mortgage offer or renegotiate terms.



      In failing to disclose material information, the firm failed to act in the best interests of its lender clients.

      Conflict of interests

      The firm acted where there was a conflict between the interest of the lenders and buyers in those transactions involving a mortgage. A conflict or significant risk of conflict existed between the lenders and buyers because the firm owed separate duties to act in the best interests of both lenders and buyers in relation to the same transactions.



      Accounting issues

      Rule 32 of the Solicitors? Accounts Rules 1998 (?the SAR 1998?) required the firm to record the various stages of husband and wife, unlimited company and nominee scheme transactions on at least 2 separate ledgers.



      Contrary to Rule 32 (1) and (2) of the SAR 1998, separate ledgers were not used in all cases to record the individual transactions.



      Mitigation

      The following points are advanced by way of mitigation on behalf of the firm, but their inclusion in this document does not amount to endorsement or adoption of the points by the SRA.

      The firm started to accept instructions for the implementation of SDLT schemes in September 2009 and ceased to accept such instructions in July 2010 and accordingly only accepted such instructions for a period of 10 months.



      The decision to cease accepting new instructions was made by the firm of its own volition following a reassessment by the firm of its involvement in SDLT schemes. This decision was made some 18 months prior to the SRA Warning Notice of February 2012.

      The firm?s initial analysis was that there were no material issues to bring to the attention of lender clients. In 2015 the Divisional Court determined in the matter of SRA v Chan, Ali and Abode Solicitors Limited that conflicts of interest existed between purchaser and lender clients where certain SDLT schemes considered in that case were implemented and the firm thus acknowledges that with hindsight their initial analysis was mistaken. The lender clients in question did however obtain a fully valid and enforceable legal charge and no assertion has been made to the contrary.



      Payments received from the promoters of the schemes were modest and constituted less than 1% of the firm?s revenues. Such payments were treated by the firm as payment for services rendered and not as commission.



      The firm charged purchaser clients direct for conveyancing services which included an element for the additional work in implementing the schemes. This element was modest and represented a small proportion of the firm?s total domestic conveyancing revenue.



      The firm has fully cooperated with the SRA over a 6 year period since the investigation began in July 2011 which, given the length of the investigation, has involved a significant amount of senior management time.



      Admissions

      The firm makes, and the SRA accepts, the following admissions:



      The firm failed to act in the best interests of lender or purchaser clients contrary to Rules 1.04 and 1.05 of the Solicitors Code of Conduct 2007 (?SCC?).

      The firm acted in transactions where there was a conflict or a significant risk of a conflict between the interests of two of more clients contrary to Rules 3.01 (1) and (2) (a) of the SCC 2007.

      the firm failed to keep accounting reports properly written up contrary to Rule 32 (1) and (2) of the SAR 1998.



      Outcome

      The firm is fined ?2,000.00 and rebuked for the breaches identified at paragraph 32 above.

      This Regulatory Settlement Agreement will be published by the SRA and may be disclosed by the SRA as it sees fit or may be disclosed to any person upon request or otherwise.



      The firm agrees that it will not act in any way inconsistent with this agreement by, for example, by denying the misconduct set out above.

      If the firm acts in any way inconsistent with this Agreement they accept that the issues may be referred back to the SRA for consideration or referral of their conduct to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal on the original facts and allegations and also on the basis that such failure to comply with this agreement may constitute a breach of Principles 2, 6 and 7 SRA Principles 2011.



      The firm agrees to pay the SRA costs in the sum of ?12,950 within 28 days of receipt of an invoice for the costs from the SRA.



      Dated this 9th day of January 2018

      For and on behalf of Simpson Millar LLP

      David Middleton, Executive Director, Solicitors Regulation Authority

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      08/01/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/441912.article?Decision=2018-01-08

      Outcome: Rebuke
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details

      K G Solicitors Limited was issued with a written rebuke. It was ordered to pay costs of ?1,350. The firm was found to have breached Principle 8 of the SRA Principles 2011 and failed to achieve Outcomes 7.2 and 7.3 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011.

      Reasons/basis

      The firm accepted 544 referrals and paid ?215,600 to an unauthorised claims management company between 8 April 2016 and 18 September 2016.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      05/01/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/020229.article?Decision=2018-01-05

      Outcome: Condition
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      Karamjeet Kaur is subject to Regulation 3 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011.

      Karamjeet Kaur?s practising certificate for 2017/2018 has been granted subject to the following condition which is necessary, reasonable and proportionate in the public interest:



      Miss Kaur must obtain and deliver, within six months of the end of the accounting period to which it covers, an accountant?s report to the SRA every 12 months, whether such report is qualified or unqualified.



      In this condition, the definitions are as defined in the SRA Handbook Glossary 2012.



      Reasons/basisThe above condition is considered to be necessary in the public interest and reasonable and proportionate having regard to the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 and the regulatory objectives and principles governing regulatory activities as contained in Section 28 of the Legal Services Act 2007.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      04/01/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/114345.article?Decision=2018-01-04

      Outcome: Select one
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      On 4 January 2018, the following findings were made against Mr Brook in relation to conduct that occurred in 2014 and 2015.

      Mr Brook was given a written rebuke and was ordered to pay a financial penalty of ?2,000. He was also ordered to pay the SRA?s costs of ?1,350 in investigating this matter.



      Reasons/basis

      Mr Brook re-drafted two wills for a client based on instructions received provided by a known third party without consent that he may act and rely on those instructions from his client. His conduct in this regard breached SRA Principles 4 and 6 and failed to achieve outcomes 1.2 and 1.5 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011.

      Mr Paul Brook is a solicitor and the recognised sole practitioner of Paul Brook Solicitors. His offices are at 77 Saltergate, Chesterfield, Derbyshire, S40 1JS.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      03/01/18

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/266174.article?Decision=2018-04-18

      Outcome: Condition
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis

      To impose the following conditions on Mr Ali's 2017/18 registration as a foreign lawyer:



      Mr Ali shall not complete or sign any professional indemnity insurance forms.

      While at an authorised body, Mr Ali shall not carry out immigration work or any non-reserved work unless this is under the direction and supervision of a person qualified to supervise pursuant to rule 12 of the SRA Practice Framework Rules 2011.

      Mr Ali shall not be a manager, member or interest holder of an authorised body or authorised non-SRA firm. This condition shall not apply to his current role at Malik Law Chambers.

      Mr Ali shall not be an employee of an authorised body without the SRA's prior approval, or an employee of an authorised non-SRA firm without the prior approval of the relevant approved regulator. This condition shall not apply to his current role at Malik Law Chambers.



      The defined terms are set out in the SRA Handbook Glossary 2012.

      The above conditions are considered to be necessary in the public interest and reasonable and proportionate having regard to the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 and the regulatory objectives and principles governing regulatory activities as contained in section 28 of the Legal Services Act 2007.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      29/12/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/504182.article?Decision=2017-12-29

      Outcome: PC/registration free of conditions
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      Victoria Iwuagwu is subject to Regulations 3 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011.

      Victoria Iwuagwu's practising certificate for 2017-2018 has been granted free from conditions.



      Reasons/basisThe SRA is satisfied that none of the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 or the regulatory objectives contained in the Legal Services Act 2007 and the principles governing regulatory activities in section 28 of that Act make it necessary in the interests of the public to impose any practising certificate condition.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      21/12/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/039608.article?Decision=2017-12-21

      Outcome: PC/registration free of conditions
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      Mrs Nusrat Ara Baig is subject to Regulation 3 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011.

      Her practising certificate for 2017/2018 has been issued free from conditions.





      Reasons/basis

      The SRA is satisfied that none of the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 or the regulatory objectives contained in the Legal Services Act 2007 and the principles governing regulatory activities in section 28 of that Act make it necessary in the interests of the public to impose any practising certificate condition.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      20/12/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/159646.article?Decision=2017-12-20

      Outcome: PC/registration free of conditions
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details

      Nicholas Leadbeater's practising certificate for 2017-2018 has been granted free from conditions.

      Reasons/basisThe SRA is satisfied that none of the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 or the regulatory objectives contained in the Legal Services Act 2007 and the principles governing regulatory activities in section 28 of that Act make it necessary in the interests of the public to impose any practising certificate condition.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      14/12/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/296039.article?Decision=2017-12-14

      Outcome: Condition
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      Miss Emma-Jane Kurtz is subject to Regulation 3.1 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011.

      Miss Kurtz?s practising certificate for the practice year 2017/2018 was granted subject to conditions.



      Reasons/basisConditions are considered necessary in the public interest and reasonable and proportionate having regard to the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 and the regulatory objectives and principles governing regulatory activities as contained in section 28 of the Legal Services Act 2007.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      13/12/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/120839.article?Decision=2017-12-13

      Outcome: Referral to Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis

      This notification relates to a Decision to prosecute before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. This is an independent Tribunal which will reach its own decision after considering all the evidence, including any evidence put forward by the Solicitor. The Tribunal has certified that there is a case to answer in respect of allegations which are or include that:



      Between the 21 December 2015 and 22 February 2016, he sent inappropriate and offensive communications to one of his professional bodies the Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners (STEP) and other parties concerning a complaint made against him by M;



      The allegations are subject to a Hearing before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal and are as yet unproven.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      12/12/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/339220.article?Decision=2017-12-12

      Outcome: Termination of suspension of PC/registration
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      The suspension of Mrs Sarah Lish's practising certificate for 2017/2018 is terminated subject to the following condition:



      Mrs Lish is not a manager or owner of an authorised body or authorised non-SRA firm.

      In this condition the definitions are as defined in the SRA Handbook Glossary 2012.



      Mrs Lish was adjudged bankrupt at the Office of the Adjudicator on 27 November 2017. Her 2017/2018 practising certificate was automatically suspended as a result.



      Reasons/basisThe above condition is considered to be necessary in the public interest and reasonable and proportionate having regard to the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 and the regulatory objectives and principles governing regulatory activities as contained in section 28 of the Legal Services Act 2007.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      11/12/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/043751.article?Decision=2017-12-11

      Outcome: Condition
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      Mr Hamza Adesanu is subject to Regulation 3 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011.

      His practising certificate for 2017/2018 is subject to the following condition which is necessary, reasonable and proportionate in the public interest:



      Mr Adesanu may not act as a manager or owner of any authorised body.



      In this condition the definitions are as defined in the SRA Handbook Glossary 2012.



      Reasons/basisThe above condition is considered to be necessary in the public interest and reasonable and proportionate having regard to the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 and the regulatory objectives and principles governing regulatory activities as contained in section 28 of the Legal Services Act 2007.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      08/12/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/519534.article?Decision=2017-12-08

      Outcome: Condition
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      Mohammed Imran is subject to Regulation 3 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011.

      Mr Imran?s practising certificate for 2017/2018 has been granted subject to the following conditions which are necessary, reasonable and proportionate in the public interest:



      Mr Imran may act as a solicitor only in employment which has first been approved, in writing, by the SRA.

      Mr Imran shall immediately inform any actual or prospective employer of these conditions and the reasons for their imposition.



      In these conditions the definitions are as defined in the SRA Handbook Glossary 2012.



      Reasons/basisThe above conditions are considered to be necessary in the public interest and reasonable and proportionate having regard to the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 and the regulatory objectives and principles governing regulatory activities as contained in section 28 of the Legal Services Act 2007.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      08/12/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/124144.article?Decision=2017-12-08

      Outcome: Rebuke
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      Mr Ryan is currently working as a consultant solicitor at KG Solicitors whose head office is at Lex House, Capricorn Park, Blakewater Road, Blackburn BB1 5QR.

      Mr Ryan was found to have breached Rule 1 of the SRA Practice Framework Rules 2011, Rules 1.2(a)(b), 14.1 and 17.2 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011, Principles 4, 6, 7 and 10 of the SRA Principles 2011 and failed to achieve Outcome 1.8 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011 because he acted for a client (and was paid for his services) outside of the regulatory regime and without any of its protections. A written rebuke was issued against Mr Ryan. He was directed to pay costs of ?1,350.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      07/12/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/016067.article?Decision=2017-12-07

      Outcome: Condition
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      Davinder Bal is subject to Regulation 3 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011.

      Davinder Bal's practising certificate for 2017/2018 has been granted subject to the following condition which is necessary, reasonable and proportionate in the public interest:



      Mr Bal shall not take on the role of manager or owner of an authorised body without the advance approval of the SRA.



      In this condition the definitions are as defined in the SRA Handbook Glossary 2012.



      Reasons/basisThe above condition is considered to be necessary in the public interest and reasonable and proportionate having regard to the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 and the regulatory objectives and principles governing regulatory activities as contained in section 28 of the Legal Services Act 2007.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      06/12/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/166864.article?Decision=2017-12-06

      Outcome: Condition
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      Mr Hanrahan is subject to Regulation 3 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011.

      Mr Hanrahan's practising certificate for 2017-2018 has been granted subject to the following conditions which are necessary, reasonable and proportionate in the public interest:



      Mr Hanrahan may practise only in employment approved by the SRA;

      Mr Hanrahan's work must be supervised by a named partner in the firm;

      Mr Hanrahan must not give undertakings;

      Mr Hanrahan must inform any actual or prospective employer of these conditions.



      In these conditions the definitions are as defined in the SRA Handbook Glossary 2012.



      Reasons/basisThe above conditions are considered to be necessary in the public interest and reasonable and proportionate having regard to the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 and the regulatory objectives and principles governing regulatory activities as contained in section 28 of the Legal Services Act 2007.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      04/12/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/417500.article?Decision=2017-11-28

      Outcome: Intervention
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis

      The Panel was satisfied that grounds for intervention existed under Paragraph 1(1)(a) of Schedule 1 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended) namely that there was reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of Jayne Louise Greer in connection with her practice as a solicitor.

      The Panel was satisfied that grounds for intervention existed under Paragraph 1(1)(c) of Schedule 1 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended) as Jayne Louise Greer had failed to comply with the SRA Principles 2011 and the SRA Accounts Rules 2011 which are rules made by virtue of Sections 31 and 32 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended).

      Intervening agents

      Neal Boland of

      Stephensons Solicitors LLP,

      Wigan Investment Centre, Waterside Drive, Wigan, Greater Manchester, WN3 5BA has been appointed as the intervening agent.



      For enquiries please

      call

      or email

      sraenquiries@stephensons.co.uk.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      04/12/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/460422.article?Decision=2017-12-04

      Outcome: Intervention
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details

      Decision to intervene into the recognised body, Dennison Greer Solicitors.

      Reasons/basis



      The Panel was satisfied that grounds for intervention existed under paragraph 32(1)(a) of Schedule 2 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985, namely that Jayne Louise Greer as manager of this former firm had failed to comply with the SRA Principals 2011 and SRA Accounts Rules 2011.

      The Panel was satisfied that grounds for intervention existed under paragraph 32(1)(d) of Schedule 2 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985, namely that there was reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of Jayne Louise Greer as a manager of this former firm in connection with its business.



      Intervening agents

      Neal Boland of

      Stephensons Solicitors LLP,

      Wigan Investment Centre, Waterside Drive, Wigan, Greater Manchester, WN3 5BA has been appointed as the intervening agent.



      For enquiries please

      call

      0333 344 4776 or email

      sraenquiries@stephensons.co.uk.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      04/12/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/155198.article?Decision=2018-10-04

      Outcome: Condition
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      Paul Matthews is subject to Regulation 3 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011.

      Paul Matthews' practising certificate for 2017-2018 has been granted subject to the following condition which is necessary, reasonable and proportionate in the public interest:



      Mr Matthews may not act as a manager or owner of any authorised body.



      In this condition the definitions are as defined in the SRA Handbook Glossary 2012.



      Reasons/basisThe above condition is considered to be necessary in the public interest and reasonable and proportionate having regard to the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 and the regulatory objectives and principles governing regulatory activities as contained in section 28 of the Legal Services Act 2007.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      30/11/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/016722.article?Decision=2017-11-30

      Outcome: Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal order
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      This notification relates to a decision to prosecute before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. This is an independent Tribunal which reaches its own decision after considering all the evidence, including any evidence put forward by the Respondent (s). The Tribunal had certified that there was a case to answer.

      The matter was determined by the Tribunal on 30 November 2017.

      The Order was made after the Tribunal considered an application to approve an agreed outcome.

      The Tribunal ordered that Mr Panayides pay a fine of ?50,000.

      Mr Panayides admitted that he:



      Conducted litigation in the High Court under a conditional fee agreement entered into on 6 October 2010 which was unlawful and unenforceable in so far as that High Court litigation was concerned, and submitted invoices and received payments for services pursuant to such agreement;

      Produced to a potential litigation funder a document which contained advice from the firm to a client ("the Preliminary Evaluation"), without disclosing that the first draft of the Preliminary Evaluation had been drafted by one of the owners of the client; and

      Made payments from sums held on behalf of litigation funders other than in accordance with the funding agreements pursuant to which such sums were held.





      Reasons/basis

      The SRA has not identified breaches of the Solicitors' Code in respect of the respondent's substantive conduct of the litigation and agrees that the admissions and outcome satisfy the public interest having regard to the gravity of the matters alleged.

      The SDT Judgment, when published, will be available at www.solicitorstribunal.org.uk.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      30/11/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/447778.article?Decision=2017-11-30

      Outcome: Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal order
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      This notification relates to a decision to prosecute before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. This is an independent Tribunal which reaches its own decision after considering all the evidence, including any evidence put forward by the Respondent(s). The Tribunal had certified that there was a case to answer.

      The matter was determined by the Tribunal on 30 November 2017.

      The Order was made after the Tribunal considered an application to approve an agreed outcome.

      The Tribunal ordered that Clifford Chance LLP pay a fine of ?50,000.

      The firm admitted that it:



      Conducted litigation in the High Court under a conditional fee agreement entered into on 6 October 2010 which was unlawful and unenforceable in so far as that High Court litigation was concerned, and submitted invoices and received payments for services pursuant to such agreement;

      Produced to a potential litigation funder a document which contained advice from the firm to a client ("the Preliminary Evaluation"), without disclosing that the first draft of the Preliminary Evaluation had been drafted by one of the owners of the client; and

      Made payments from sums held on behalf of litigation funders other than in accordance with the funding agreements pursuant to which such sums were held.





      Reasons/basis



      The SRA has not identified breaches of the Solicitors' Code in respect of the respondent's substantive conduct of the litigation and agrees that the admissions and outcome satisfy the public interest having regard to the gravity of the matters alleged.

      The SDT Judgment, when published, will be available at www.solicitorstribunal.org.uk.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      29/11/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/196186.article?Decision=2017-11-29

      Outcome: PC/registration free of conditions
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      Mr Roy Hammond's practising certificate for 2017/18 has been issued free from conditions.

      The SRA is satisfied that none of the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 or the regulatory objectives contained in the Legal Services Act 2007 and the principles governing regulatory activities in section 28 of that Act make it necessary in the interests of the public to impose any practising certificate condition.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      29/11/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/229009.article?Decision=2017-11-29

      Outcome: Condition
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      Mr Andrew Morgan is subject to Regulation 3 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011.

      Mr Morgan?s practising certificate for 2017-2018 has been granted subject to the following condition which is necessary, reasonable and proportionate in the public interest:



      Mr Morgan may not act as a manager or owner of an authorised body.



      In this condition the definitions are as defined in the SRA Handbook Glossary 2012.



      Reasons/basisThe above condition is considered to be necessary in the public interest and reasonable and proportionate having regard to the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 and the regulatory objectives and principles governing regulatory activities as contained in section 28 of the Legal Services Act 2007.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      24/11/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/575228.article?Decision=2017-11-24

      Outcome: Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal order
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis



      Outcome of SDT Hearing



      This notification relates to a Decision to prosecute before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. This is an independent Tribunal which reaches its own decision after considering all the evidence, including any evidence put forward by the Respondent.

      The Tribunal had certified that there was a case to answer.

      The matter was heard on 24 November 2017.

      Mr.Barker was Struck Off the Roll by way of an Agreed Outcome.

      The SDT judgment will be available at www.solicitorstribunal.org.uk

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      22/11/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/194786.article?Decision=2017-11-22

      Outcome: Regulatory settlement agreement
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis

      Agreed outcome

      1.1. Mr Gordon a solicitor agrees to the following outcome to the investigation of his conduct by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA):



      (a) he is rebuked

      (b) to the publication of this agreement

      (c) he will pay the costs of the investigation of ?300.



      Summary of Facts

      2.1. On 10 January 2017, Mr Gordon was convicted of driving with excess alcohol in Singapore.

      2.2. The sentence was:



      (a) disqualification from driving for 26 months.

      (b) a fine of $3,200 (Singapore dollars).



      Admissions

      3.1. Mr Gordon admits and the SRA accepts, that by virtue of his conviction for driving with excess alcohol, he has failed to uphold the rule of law in breach of Principle 1 of the SRA Principles 2011.

      Why the agreed outcome is appropriate

      4.1. The SRA considers that the agreed outcome is appropriate as the conditions in rule 3.1 of the SRA Disciplinary Rules 2011 are met, in that:



      (a) the conduct was deliberate or reckless

      (b) that the agreed outcome is a proportionate outcome in the public interest

      (c) that the conduct was neither trivial nor justifiably inadvertent.



      4.2. In deciding that the agreed outcome is proportionate, the SRA has taken into account the admissions made by Mr Gordon and the following mitigation which he has put forward, that he:



      (a) regrets his conduct and will be enrolling in a drink-drive self-awareness course

      (b) apologises to the SRA for his conduct.



      4.3. The SRA considers it appropriate that this agreement is published in the interests of transparency in the regulatory and disciplinary process.

      Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this Agreement

      5.1. Mr Gordon agrees that he will not act in any way which is inconsistent with this agreement such as, for example, by denying the admissions made in this agreement.

      5.2. If Mr Gordon acts in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement, the conduct which is subject to this agreement may be subject to further consideration by the SRA. That may result in a disciplinary sanction or a referral to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal on the original facts and allegations. Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement may also constitute a separate breach of Principles 2, 6 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2011.

      Costs

      6.1. Mr Gordon agrees to pay the costs of the SRA's investigation in the sum of ?300. Such costs are due within 28 days of a statement of costs due being issued by the SRA.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      22/11/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/463299.article?Decision=2017-11-22

      Outcome: Intervention
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details

      Decision to intervene into practice.

      Reasons/basis

      The Adjudication Panel is satisfied that grounds for intervention into the remnants of Nightingales Solicitors Limited exists on the ground that that it is necessary to do to protect the interests of firm's former clients (paragraph 32(1) (e) of schedule 2 the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (as amended)).

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      16/11/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/092560.article?Decision=2017-11-16

      Outcome: Intervention
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details

      Decision to intervene into practice.

      Reasons/basisThe Adjudication Panel is satisfied that grounds for intervention into Ms Freestone's former practice existed under Paragraph 1(1)(m) of Schedule 1 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended) that it is necessary to do so in order to protect the interests of her former or potential clients. Other informationNo agent has been appointed. Arrangements are being made to collect the practice papers.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      15/11/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/309586.article?Decision=2017-11-15

      Outcome: Regulatory settlement agreement
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      1.1. Duncan Lewis Solicitors Ltd, a recognised body, agrees to the following outcome to the investigation of its conduct by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA):



      (a) it is rebuked

      (b) it is fined ?1,500

      (c) to the publication of this agreement

      (d) it will pay the costs of the investigation of ?1,350



      Summary of Facts

      2.1. On 29 September 2016, the firm identified that 23 cash receipts from clients, received between 10 November 2015 and 23 August 2016 and totalling ?6,117.00, had not been deposited into any of the firm's bank accounts. The firm replaced the money.

      2.2. The firm concluded that the money had been misappropriated by an administrative assistant in the firm?s Birmingham office who had responsibility for paying the money into the bank, but had not done so.

      2.3. The firm recorded the matter in their breach register but described it in the register and an internal memo as being 'not-material' and as an 'internal issue'.

      2.4. The breach was not disclosed to the SRA until 4 January 2017 when a member of the SRA's staff met with the firm about unrelated matters.

      Admissions

      3.1. Duncan Lewis Solicitors Ltd makes the following admissions which the SRA accepts:



      (a) That by failing to notify the SRA promptly of the misappropriation of money by the member of staff it:



      i. breached Principle 7 of the SRA Principles 2011 ("the Principles") by failing to comply with its regulatory obligations

      ii. failed to achieve Outcome 10.4 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011 ("the Code") by failing to report to the SRA promptly serious misconduct by an employee.



      (b) That it breached Rule 1.2(e) of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011 ("the Accounts Rules") by failing to maintain effective accounting systems, and proper internal controls over those systems. As a result, it failed to discover the misappropriations between 10 November 2015 and 29 September 2016.



      Why the agreed outcome is appropriate

      4.1. The SRA considers that the agreed outcome is appropriate because the conditions in rule 3.1 of the SRA Disciplinary Rules 2011 are met, in that:



      a) the conduct continued for an unreasonable period taking into account its seriousness

      b) the conduct was or was related to a failure or refusal to ascertain, recognise or comply with the regulated person's professional or regulatory obligations such as, but not limited to, compliance with requirements imposed by legislation or rules made pursuant to legislation, the SRA, the Law Society, the Legal Ombudsman, the Tribunal or the court

      c) the agreed outcome is a proportionate outcome in the public interest

      d) the conduct was neither trivial nor justifiably inadvertent.



      4.2. In deciding that the agreed outcome is proportionate, the SRA has taken into account the admissions made by Duncan Lewis Solicitors Ltd.

      4.3. The amount of the fine takes into account all relevant circumstances, including those set out in Appendix 1 to the SRA Disciplinary Procedure Rules 2011.

      4.4. The SRA considers it appropriate that this agreement is published in the interests of transparency in the regulatory and disciplinary process.

      Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this Agreement

      5.1. Duncan Lewis Solicitors Ltd agrees that it will not act in any way which is inconsistent with this agreement such as, for example, by denying the admissions made in this agreement.

      5.2. If Duncan Lewis Solicitors Ltd acts in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement, the conduct which is subject to this agreement may be considered further by the SRA. That may result in a disciplinary outcome or a referral to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal on the original facts and allegations. Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement may also constitute a separate breach of Principles 2, 6 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2011.

      Costs

      6.1. Duncan Lewis Solicitors Ltd agrees to pay the costs of the SRA's investigation in the sum of ?1,350. Such costs are due within 28 days of a statement of costs due being issued by the SRA.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      09/11/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/440854.article?Decision=2017-11-09

      Outcome: Regulatory settlement agreement
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis

      Agreed outcome

      1.1. Vikesh Dinoo Bharakhda, a solicitor, agrees to the following outcome to the investigation of his conduct by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA):



      (a) he is rebuked.

      (b) he is fined ?2,000.

      (c) to the publication of this agreement.

      (d) he will pay the costs of the investigation of ?300



      Summary of Facts

      2.1. On 6 April 2017 Mr Bharakhda was convicted of two offences of common assault and one public order offence contrary to section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986.

      2.2. The sentence imposed was:



      (a) a financial penalty of ?900; and

      (b) a Community Order with 80 hours of unpaid work.



      2.3. Mr Bharakhda was also ordered to pay:



      (a) compensation to each of the two victims of ?150;

      (b) a victim surcharge of ?90; and

      (c) costs of ?640.



      Admissions

      3.1. Mr Bharakhda makes the following admissions which the SRA accepts:



      (a) that by virtue of his convictions stated above he has failed to uphold the rule of law in breach of Principle 1 of the SRA Principles 2011.



      Why the agreed outcome is appropriate

      4.1. The SRA considers that the agreed outcome is appropriate as the conditions in rule 3.1 of the SRA Disciplinary Rules 2011 are met, in that:



      (a) the conduct was deliberate or reckless.

      (b) that the agreed outcome is a proportionate outcome in the public interest.

      (c) that the conduct was neither trivial nor justifiably inadvertent.



      4.2. The amount of the fine takes into account all relevant circumstances, including those set out in Appendix 1 to the SRA Disciplinary Procedure Rules 2011.

      4.3. The SRA considers it appropriate that this agreement is published in the interests of transparency in the regulatory and disciplinary process.

      Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this Agreement

      5.1. Mr Bharakhda agrees that he will not act in any way which is inconsistent with this agreement such as, for example, by denying the admissions made in this agreement.

      5.2. If Mr Bharakhda acts in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement, the conduct which is subject to this agreement may be subject to further consideration by the SRA. That may result in a disciplinary sanction or a referral to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal on the original facts and allegations. Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement may also constitute a separate breach of Principles 2, 6 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2011.

      Costs

      6.1. Mr Bharakhda agrees to pay the costs of the SRA's investigation in the sum of ?300. Such costs are due within 28 days of a statement of costs due being issued by the SRA.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      09/11/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/344510.article?Decision=2017-11-09

      Outcome: Intervention
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basisThe Panel was satisfied that there was reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of Mr Bilmes in connection with his practice as a solicitor

      (paragraph 1 (1)(a)(i) Schedule 1-Part 1 Solicitors Act 1974 as amended.

      Intervening agentsKaren Thompson of

      Lester Aldridge LLP,

      Russell House, Oxford Road, Bournemouth, BH8 8EX has been appointed as the intervening agent.



      For enquiries please

      call

      01202 786341 or email

      interventions@LA-Law.com .

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      08/11/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/472039.article?Decision=2017-11-08

      Outcome: Intervention
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details

      Decision to intervene into the recognised body, Bilmes LLP

      Reasons/basis

      The Panel was satisfied that grounds for intervention existed under paragraph 32(1)(d)(i) of Schedule 2 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985, namely that there was reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of Christopher Michael Bilmes a manager of Bilmes LLP.

      Intervening agents

      Karen Thompson of

      Lester Aldridge LLP ,

      Russell House, Oxford Road, Bournemouth, BH8 8EX has been appointed as the intervening agent.



      For enquiries please

      call

      01202 786341 or email

      interventions@LA-Law.com .

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      08/11/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/107507.article?Decision=2017-11-08

      Outcome: Condition
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      Mr Jones is subject to Regulation 3 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011.

      Mr Jones' practising certificate for 2017-2018 has been granted subject to the following conditions which are necessary, reasonable and proportionate in the public interest:



      Mr Jones is not a sole practitioner, or manager or owner of any authorised body;

      Mr Jones shall immediately inform any actual or prospective employer of these conditions and the reasons for their imposition.



      In these conditions the definitions are as defined in the SRA Handbook Glossary 2012.



      Reasons/basisThe above conditions are considered to be necessary in the public interest and reasonable and proportionate having regard to the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 and the regulatory objectives and principles governing regulatory activities as contained in section 28 of the Legal Services Act 2007.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      08/11/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/127392.article?Decision=2018-05-03

      Outcome: Condition
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      David Rees is subject to Regulations 3 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011.

      Mr Rees' practising certificate for 2017-2018 has been granted subject to the following condition which is necessary, reasonable and proportionate in the public interest:



      Mr Rees delivers half yearly accountant's reports, such reports and any cease to hold accountant's report required, to be delivered within 2 months of the end of the period to which they relate.



      In this condition the definitions are as defined in the SRA Handbook Glossary 2012.



      Reasons/basisThe above conditions are considered to be necessary in the public interest and reasonable and proportionate having regard to the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 and the regulatory objectives and principles governing regulatory activities as contained in section 28 of the Legal Services Act 2007.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      07/11/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/287202.article?Decision=2017-11-07

      Outcome: PC/registration free of conditions
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      Mr James Kyle Patterson is subject to Regulations 3 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011.

      Mr Patterson?s practising certificate for 2017-2018 has been granted free from conditions.





      Reasons/basisThe SRA is satisfied that none of the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 or the regulatory objectives contained in the Legal Services Act 2007 and the principles governing regulatory activities in section 28 of that Act make it necessary in the interests of the public to impose any practising certificate condition.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      07/11/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/504779.article?Decision=2017-11-07

      Outcome: Referral to Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis

      Outcome of SDT Hearing

      This notification relates to a Decision to prosecute before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. This is an independent Tribunal which reaches its own decision after considering all the evidence, including any evidence put forward by the Respondent. The Tribunal had certified that there was a case to answer.

      The matter was heard on 1 March 2018.

      Mr. Salya was Struck Off the Roll.

      The SDT judgment will be available at www.solicitorstribunal.org.uk

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      06/11/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/123276.article?Decision=2017-11-06

      Outcome: PC/registration free of conditions
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      Mrs Lynn Wallis is subject to Regulations 3 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011.

      Mrs Wallis' practising certificate for 2017-2018 has been granted free from conditions.



      Reasons/basisThe SRA is satisfied that none of the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 or the regulatory objectives contained in the Legal Services Act 2007 and the principles governing regulatory activities in section 28 of that Act make it necessary in the interests of the public to impose any practising certificate condition.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      06/11/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/472034.article?Decision=2017-11-06

      Outcome: Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal order
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      This notification relates to a decision to prosecute before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. This is an independent Tribunal which reaches its own decision after considering all the evidence, including any evidence put forward by the respondent(s). The Tribunal had certified that there was a case to answer.

      The matter was determined by the Tribunal on 6 November 2017.

      The Order was made after the Tribunal considered an application to approve an agreed outcome.

      The Tribunal ordered that Locke Lord (UK) LLP pay a fine of ?500,000.

      The firm admitted that it:



      Failed to prevent a solicitor working in the firm from involving himself (and holding out the firm as being involved in) and using the firm's client account in transactions that bore the hallmarks of dubious financial arrangements or investment schemes and in doing so breached all or any of Principles 2, 4, 6 and 8 of the SRA Principles 2011;

      Failed to prevent a solicitor working in the firm from directing or requesting payments into, and transfers or withdrawals from, the firm's client account which were not related to an underlying legal transaction or a service forming part of the firm's normal regulated activities in breach of Rule 14.5 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011;

      Failed to have effective systems and controls in place to enable it to identify and assess potential conflicts of interest and in doing so breached all or any of Principles 4 and 8 of the SRA Principles 2011 and Outcomes O(3.1) and O(3.2) of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011;

      Failed to properly supervise the work of a solicitor working in the firm, including after indicators became known to the firm of matters necessitating such supervision in breach of all or any of Principles 6 and 8 of the SRA Principles 2011.





      Reasons/basis



      The SRA is satisfied that the admissions and outcome satisfy the public interest having regard to the gravity of the matters alleged.

      The SDT Judgment, when published, will be available at www.solicitorstribunal.org.uk.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      02/11/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/144571.article?Decision=2017-11-02

      Outcome: Condition
      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details
      Mailvaganam Markandan is subject to Regulation 3 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011.

      Mailvaganam Markandan's practising certificate for 2017-2018 has been granted subject to the following conditions which are necessary, reasonable and proportionate in the public interest:

      Mailvaganam Markandan may act as a solicitor, only as an employee.
      Mailvaganam Markandan may not act as a manager or owner of any authorised body.
      Mailvaganam Markandan shall immediately inform any actual or prospective employer of these conditions and the reasons for their imposition.
      Mailvaganam Markandan shall not be permitted to supervise any other fee earning staff.
      That within a period of two months prior to the date of his return to practise as a solicitor, Mailvaganam Markandan should attend courses accredited by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) on the subject of mortgage fraud and on the subject of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011 and provide the SRA with confirmation of his attendance upon such courses (in the form of a certificate or letter of attendance from the course provider) within one month of having attended those courses.
      In these conditions the definitions are as defined in the SRA Handbook Glossary 2012.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      02/11/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/144571.article?Decision=2017-11-02

      Outcome: Condition
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      Mailvaganam Markandan is subject to Regulation 3 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011.

      Mailvaganam Markandan's practising certificate for 2017-2018 has been granted subject to the following conditions which are necessary, reasonable and proportionate in the public interest:



      Mailvaganam Markandan may act as a solicitor, only as an employee.

      Mailvaganam Markandan may not act as a manager or owner of any authorised body.

      Mailvaganam Markandan shall immediately inform any actual or prospective employer of these conditions and the reasons for their imposition.

      Mailvaganam Markandan shall not be permitted to supervise any other fee earning staff.

      That within a period of two months prior to the date of his return to practise as a solicitor, Mailvaganam Markandan should attend courses accredited by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) on the subject of mortgage fraud and on the subject of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011 and provide the SRA with confirmation of his attendance upon such courses (in the form of a certificate or letter of attendance from the course provider) within one month of having attended those courses.



      In these conditions the definitions are as defined in the SRA Handbook Glossary 2012.



      Reasons/basisThe above conditions are considered to be necessary in the public interest and reasonable and proportionate having regard to the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 and the regulatory objectives and principles governing regulatory activities as contained in section 28 of the Legal Services Act 2007.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      02/11/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/417183.article?Decision=2017-11-02

      Outcome: Intervention
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details

      Decision to intervene into practice.

      Reasons/basisThe Adjudication Panel is satisfied that grounds for intervention existed under Paragraph 1(1)(g) of Schedule 1 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended) being that Azfar Naseem Bajwa has been struck off the roll of solicitors.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      31/10/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/019818.article?Decision=2017-10-31

      Outcome: Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal order
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis



      Outcome of SDT Hearing



      This notification relates to a Decision to prosecute before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. This is an independent Tribunal which reaches its own decision after considering all the evidence, including any evidence put forward by the Respondent. The Tribunal had certified that there was a case to answer.

      The matter was heard on 31 October 2017.

      Mr Regan was Struck Off the Roll.

      The SDT judgment will be available at www.solicitorstribunal.org.uk

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      30/10/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/133593.article?Decision=2017-10-30

      Outcome: Referral to Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis

      This notification relates to a Decision to prosecute before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. This is an independent Tribunal which will reach its own decision after considering all the evidence, including any evidence put forward by the Solicitor. The Tribunal has certified that there is a case to answer in respect of allegations which are or include that :-

      1. He acted in an own interest conflict or where there was a significant risk of an own interest conflict in respect of his client, Mrs JWB in circumstances where he loaned her ?27,000 through his company Safechase Ltd, at an annual interest rate of 60%, the loan being secured by a legal charge over Mrs JWB?s property. Mrs JWB defaulted on repayment of the loan which led to the Respondent obtaining possession of the property and selling it from which he received ?76,564.30 from the proceeds of sale. Consequently, the Respondent took unfair advantage of Mrs JWB.

      2. He made the following misleading claim in a witness statement dated 14 January 2014 which was served in litigation bought by Royds Solicitors on behalf of their client Mr O and in which they sought to contest the validity of a legal charge over Mrs JWB?s property which was made in favour of the Respondent?s company, Safechase: ?the charge was registered in respect of a loan made to Mrs JWB at her request and at a time when I did not act for her in any capacity? That claim was misleading as the Respondent was acting for Mrs JWB in defending possession proceedings at the time that he made the loan to her and at the time that the legal charge was registered.

      3. He acted on behalf of Mr K in litigation on the instructions of a third party without ever confirming those instructions with Mr K and without seeing any written authority from Mr K that he could act on instructions of the third party.

      The allegations are subject to a Hearing before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal and are as yet unproven.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      27/10/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/202944.article?Decision=2017-10-27

      Outcome: PC/registration free of conditions
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      Daniel Klein is subject to Regulation 3 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011.

      Mr Klein's practising certificate for 2016-2017 has been issued free from conditions.



      Reasons/basisThe SRA is satisfied that none of the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 or the regulatory objectives contained in the Legal Services Act 2007 and the principles governing regulatory activities in section 28 of that Act make it necessary in the interests of the public to impose any practising certificate condition.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      26/10/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/314222.article?Decision=2017-10-26

      Outcome: PC/registration free of conditions
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      Scott Bowen is subject to Regulations 3 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011.

      Mr Bowen's practising certificate for 2017-2018 has been granted free from conditions.



      Reasons/basisThe SRA is satisfied that none of the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 or the regulatory objectives contained in the Legal Services Act 2007 and the principles governing regulatory activities in section 28 of that Act make it necessary in the interests of the public to impose any practising certificate condition.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      24/10/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/129021.article?Decision=2017-10-24

      Outcome: Intervention
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details

      Decision to intervene into practice.

      Reasons/basisThe Adjudication Panel is satisfied that grounds for intervention into Mr Stott's former practice existed under Paragraph 1(1)(m) of Schedule 1 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended) that it is necessary to do so in order to protect the interests of his former or potential clients.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      23/10/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/162410.article?Decision=2017-10-23

      Outcome: Condition
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      Mohsin Afsar is subject to Regulation 3 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011.

      Mohsin Afsar practising certificate for 2017/2018 has been granted subject to the following conditions which are necessary, reasonable and proportionate in the public interest:



      Mr Afsar is not a manager or owner of an authorised body.

      Mr Afsar may not act as a compliance officer for legal practice (COLP) or compliance officer for finance and administration (COFA) for any authorised body.

      Mr Afsar shall immediately inform any actual or prospective employer of these conditions and the reasons for their imposition.



      In these conditions the definitions are as defined in the SRA Handbook Glossary 2012.



      Reasons/basisThe above conditions are considered to be necessary in the public interest and reasonable and proportionate having regard to the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 and the regulatory objectives and principles governing regulatory activities as contained in section 28 of the Legal Services Act 2007.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      23/10/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/420734.article?Decision=2017-10-23

      Outcome: Referral to Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis

      This notification relates to a Decision to prosecute before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. This is an independent Tribunal which will reach its own decision after considering all the evidence, including any evidence put forward by the Solicitor. The Tribunal has certified that there is a case to answer in respect of allegations which are or include that whilst a director of and practising as a solicitor for Child & Child ("the Firm"):

      ?In relation to the E Transaction and his clients, the A Sisters:



      Between around February 2015 and April 2016, he failed to take any or any adequate steps to ascertain, from publicly available information or at all, at the time of acting for them, whether the A Sisters were:

      politically exposed persons, pursuant to Regulation 14 of The Money Laundering Regulations 2007 (the ?Regulations?); and/ or reportedly linked with the proceeds of crime;

      Between around February 2015 and April 2016, he failed to apply enhanced customer due diligence in respect of the A Sisters, in a situation:

      which by its nature presented a higher risk of money laundering; and/ or wherein the customer had not been physically present for identification purposes; and/ or wherein he proposed to have a business relationship or carry out an occasional transaction with a politically exposed person;

      Between around February 2015 and April 2016, he failed to take any or any adequate steps to confirm his client?s instructions, in that he accepted instructions from M and/ or P1 on behalf of the A Sisters without ensuring that M and/ or P1 were properly authorised to give such instructions;

      Between around February 2015 and April 2016, acted in the E Transaction in circumstances which disclosed a significant risk that money laundering was taking place;

      Between around November 2013 and March 2014, failed to conduct ongoing monitoring, pursuant to Regulation 8 of the Regulations, of his business relationship with M at the time of acting for him in the M Gift matter, notwithstanding the risk factors in the transaction;

      Between around November 2013 and March 2014, acted in the M Gift matter in circumstances which disclosed a significant risk that money laundering was taking place;



      The allegations are subject to a Hearing before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal and are as yet unproven.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      20/10/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/194346.article?Decision=2017-10-20

      Outcome: Regulatory settlement agreement
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis

      Agreed outcome

      1.1. Anthony Gary Vingoe, a solicitor, agrees to the following outcome to the investigation of his conduct by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA):



      (a) he is rebuked

      (b) he is fined ?800

      (c) to the publication of this agreement

      (d) he will pay the costs of the investigation of ?600.



      Summary of Facts

      2.1. Mr Vingoe was a consultant solicitor at Excello Law Limited between 2 January 2013 and 1 June 2016. Since 03 June 2016 he has been a consultant solicitor at SDK Law.

      2.2. Mr Vingoe is also the sole director of Divorce & Finance Specialist Limited which is registered at Companies House under company number 09358798. Divorce & Finance Specialist lists its business type as 'Solicitors' in its Companies House records. Divorce & Finance Specialist Limited is not authorised or regulated by the SRA or any other approved regulator to provide legal services.

      2.3. Mr Vingoe acted in three separate divorce matters during the period May 2015 and September 2016.

      2.4. Mr Vingoe acted for Mrs A in divorce proceedings through Divorce & Finance Specialist Limited during the period May 2015 until June 2016, when she became a client of SDK Law. Mr Vingoe corresponded with Mr A and his solicitors in the name of Divorce & Finance Specialist Limited. He prepared a financial statement which was sent to Mr A's solicitors and inserted the name Divorce & Finance Specialist in the statement of truth under the section 'name of applicant/respondent's solicitor's firm'.

      2.5. Mr Vingoe acted for Mr B in divorce proceedings during the period 1 April 2016 until 27 June 2016, when he became a client of SDK Law. He wrote to Mrs B's solicitors, the Court and various third parties, informing them that Divorce & Finance Specialist Limited was acting on behalf of Mr B in the proceedings.

      2.6. Mrs C was a client of a non-authorised company providing divorce advice. Mr Vingoe had provided consultancy services to that company. After the company stopped trading, Mr Vingoe wrote to Mrs C under the name of Divorce & Finance Specialist concerning her divorce. Mr Vingoe sent the decree nisi to Mrs C and an application to apply for her decree absolute.

      2.7. Mr Vingoe acted for Mrs C during the period April 2016 until September 2016 in connection with her divorce. He wrote to Mrs C and the Court and he filed a Notice of Change at the Court, all in the name of Divorce & Finance Specialist. He obtained the Decree Absolute for Mrs C whilst acting as Divorce & Finance Specialist Limited.

      2.8. The services Mr Vingoe provided to Mrs A, Mr B and Mrs C were not provided through an SRA authorised body. Mr Vingoe did not inform Mrs A, Mr B or Mrs C how the services which he provided were regulated or the regulatory protections they would, or wouldn't, have.

      Admissions

      3.1. Mr Vingoe makes the following admissions which the SRA accepts:



      (a) that by practising as a solicitor through Divorce & Finance Specialist Limited he breached Rule 1 of the SRA Practice Framework Rules 2011 because he practised as a solicitor outside of the ways permitted by that rule.

      (b) that by not informing Mrs A, Mr B or Mrs C whether and how the services he provided were regulated he:



      i. breached Principles 4 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011 ("the Principles"), and

      ii. failed to achieve Outcomes 1.2 and 1.7 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011 ("the Code").



      (c) that he failed to achieve Outcomes 8.1 and 8.4 of the Code because he:



      i. wrote to the Court, clients, opponents and third parties using a letterhead and style of communication which gave the impression the correspondence was from a firm of solicitors, and

      ii. advertised the business of Divorce and Finance Specialist Solicitors through the website which gave the impression that it was a firm of solicitors.





      Why the agreed outcome is appropriate

      4.1. The SRA considers that the agreed outcome is appropriate because the conditions in rule 3.1 of the SRA Disciplinary Rules 2011 are met, in that:



      (a) the conduct was related to a failure or refusal to ascertain, recognise or comply with the regulated person's professional or regulatory obligations and misled or had the potential to mislead clients, the court or other persons

      (b) the agreed outcome is a proportionate outcome in the public interest

      (c) the conduct was neither trivial nor justifiably inadvertent.



      4.2. In deciding that the agreed outcome is proportionate, the SRA has taken into account the admissions made by Mr Vingoe and the following mitigation which he has put forward:



      (a) that in the case of Mrs C he was simply trying to help a lady finish her divorce

      (b) that he did not deliberately breach the rules, and

      (c) that no clients have suffered any loss.



      4.3. The amount of the fine takes into account all relevant circumstances, including those set out in Appendix 1 to the SRA Disciplinary Procedure Rules 2011.

      4.4. The SRA considers it appropriate that this agreement is published in the interests of transparency in the regulatory and disciplinary process.

      Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this Agreement

      5.1. Mr Vingoe agrees that he will not act in any way which is inconsistent with this agreement such as, for example, by denying the admissions made in this agreement.

      5.2. If Mr Vingoe acts in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement, the conduct which is subject to this agreement may be considered further by the SRA. That may result in a disciplinary outcome or a referral to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal on the original facts and allegations. Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement may also constitute a separate breach of Principles 2, 6 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2011.

      Costs

      6.1. Mr Vingoe agrees to pay the costs of the SRA's investigation in the sum of ?600. Such costs are due within 28 days of a statement of costs due being issued by the SRA.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      20/10/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/302324.article?Decision=2017-10-20

      Outcome: Rebuke
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis

      First Instance Decision dated 14 July 2017

      Victor Pius Amadigwe works as an in house solicitor at Haringey Law Centre whose office is at 7 Holcombe Road, London, N17 9AA.

      During his employment Mr Amadigwe deliberately misrepresented to an expert third party that he had instructed him on a conditional fee agreement to delay payment of the expert?s professional fees.

      Mr Amadigwe was found to have breached Principles 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011. He was issued with a rebuke and directed to pay a financial penalty of ?1,200 and costs of ?600.

      Other information

      Appeal decision dated 20 October 2017

      Pursuant to Rule 6.3 of the SRA Cost of Investigations Regulations 2011, we consider it appropriate to exercise our discretion to order Mr Amadigwe to pay the additional sum of ?250 in respect of his appeal. His appeal against the Adjudicator's decision was unsuccessful. We therefore consider that it is appropriate for him to bear the costs of the appeal.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      19/10/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/011524.article?Decision=2017-10-19

      Outcome: Referral to Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis

      This notification relates to a Decision to prosecute before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. This is an independent Tribunal which will reach its own decision after considering all the evidence, including any evidence put forward by the Solicitor. The Tribunal has certified that there is a case to answer in respect of allegations which are or include that :-

      1. He conducted litigation between January 2013 and March 2014, during a period of suspension;

      2. He completed and submitted misleading documents to the Court;

      The allegations are subject to a Hearing before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal and are as yet unproven.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      17/10/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/568116.article?Decision=2017-10-17

      Outcome: Regulatory settlement agreement
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      Agreed outcome

      1.1. Babatunde Oladele Ojo agrees to the following outcome to the investigation of his conduct by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA):



      (a) he is rebuked

      (b) he is fined ?2,000

      (c) to the publication of this agreement

      (d) he will pay the costs of the investigation of ?1,350.



      Summary of Facts

      2.1. Mr Ojo is the sole director of Green Management Solutions Limited (GMSL). GMSL is not (and never has been) authorised or regulated by the SRA.

      2.2. In 2015 Mr Ojo acted for a friend in the sale of their property. He did this through GMSL.

      2.3. Mr Ojo asked the purchaser's solicitors to send the completion monies to what he described as, "GMSL's client account". This was Mr Ojo's personal bank account, through which he transacted GSML business.

      2.4. The purchaser's solicitors asked Mr Ojo whether GMSL was regulated by the SRA and authorised to carry out conveyancing. Mr Ojo responded that GMSL was registered as providing legal services and gave GMSL's Companies House registration details. He confirmed his status as a solicitor authorised by the SRA.

      2.5. The purchaser's solicitors paid the completion monies into Mr Ojo's personal bank account. The sale completed in October 2015. Mr Ojo sent the completion monies to the seller.

      Admissions

      3.1. Mr Ojo makes the following admissions which the SRA accepts:



      (a) by describing his own bank account as GSML's client account and by providing information to the purchaser's solicitors which could have misled them, he breached Principles 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011.

      (b) by receiving client money into his personal bank account and not a client bank account, he breached Rule 14.1 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011.



      Why the agreed outcome is appropriate

      4.1. The SRA considers that the agreed outcome is appropriate because the conditions in rule 3.1 of the SRA Disciplinary Rules 2011 are met, in that:



      (a) the conduct had the potential to cause loss to any other person;

      (b) the conduct had the potential to mislead other persons, whether or not that was appreciated by the regulated person;

      (c) the agreed outcome is a proportionate outcome in the public interest;

      (d) the conduct was neither trivial nor justifiably inadvertent.



      4.2. In deciding that the agreed outcome is proportionate, the SRA has taken into account the admissions made by Mr Ojo and the following mitigation which he has put forward:



      (a) he acted in good faith to assist a friend in a conveyancing transaction.

      (b) no loss was caused.



      4.3. The amount of the fine takes into account all relevant circumstances, including those set out in Appendix 1 to the SRA Disciplinary Procedure Rules 2011.

      4.4. The SRA considers it appropriate that this agreement is published in the interests of transparency in the regulatory and disciplinary process.

      Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this Agreement

      5.1. Mr Ojo agrees that he will not act in any way which is inconsistent with this agreement such as, for example, by denying the admissions made in this agreement.

      5.2. If Mr Ojo acts in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement, the conduct which is subject to this agreement may be subject to further consideration by the SRA. That may result in a disciplinary sanction or a referral to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal on the original facts and allegations. Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement may also constitute a separate breach of Principles 2, 6 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2011.

      Costs

      6.1. Mr Ojo agrees to pay the costs of the SRA's investigation in the sum of ?1350. Such costs are due within 28 days of a statement of costs due being issued by the SRA.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      17/10/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/568116.article?Decision=2017-10-17

      Outcome: Regulatory settlement agreement
      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details
      Agreed outcome
      1.1. Babatunde Oladele Ojo agrees to the following outcome to the investigation of his conduct by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA):

      (a) he is rebuked
      (b) he is fined ?2,000
      (c) to the publication of this agreement
      (d) he will pay the costs of the investigation of ?1,350.
      Summary of Facts
      2.1. Mr Ojo is the sole director of Green Management Solutions Limited (GMSL). GMSL is not (and never has been) authorised or regulated by the SRA.

      2.2. In 2015 Mr Ojo acted for a friend in the sale of their property. He did this through GMSL.

      2.3. Mr Ojo asked the purchaser's solicitors to send the completion monies to what he described as, "GMSL's client account". This was Mr Ojo's personal bank account, through which he transacted GSML business.

      2.4. The purchaser's solicitors asked Mr Ojo whether GMSL was regulated by the SRA and authorised to carry out conveyancing. Mr Ojo responded that GMSL was registered as providing legal services and gave GMSL's Companies House registration details. He confirmed his status as a solicitor authorised by the SRA.

      2.5. The purchaser's solicitors paid the completion monies into Mr Ojo's personal bank account. The sale completed in October 2015. Mr Ojo sent the completion monies to the seller.

      Admissions
      3.1. Mr Ojo makes the following admissions which the SRA accepts:

      (a) by describing his own bank account as GSML's client account and by providing information to the purchaser's solicitors which could have misled them, he breached Principles 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011.
      (b) by receiving client money into his personal bank account and not a client bank account, he breached Rule 14.1 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011.
      Why the agreed outcome is appropriate
      4.1. The SRA considers that the agreed outcome is appropriate because the conditions in rule 3.1 of the SRA Disciplinary Rules 2011 are met, in that:

      (a) the conduct had the potential to cause loss to any other person;
      (b) the conduct had the potential to mislead other persons, whether or not that was appreciated by the regulated person;
      (c) the agreed outcome is a proportionate outcome in the public interest;
      (d) the conduct was neither trivial nor justifiably inadvertent.
      4.2. In deciding that the agreed outcome is proportionate, the SRA has taken into account the admissions made by Mr Ojo and the following mitigation which he has put forward:

      (a) he acted in good faith to assist a friend in a conveyancing transaction.
      (b) no loss was caused.
      4.3. The amount of the fine takes into account all relevant circumstances, including those set out in Appendix 1 to the SRA Disciplinary Procedure Rules 2011.

      4.4. The SRA considers it appropriate that this agreement is published in the interests of transparency in the regulatory and disciplinary process.

      Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this Agreement
      5.1. Mr Ojo agrees that he will not act in any way which is inconsistent with this agreement such as, for example, by denying the admissions made in this agreement.

      5.2. If Mr Ojo acts in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement, the conduct which is subject to this agreement may be subject to further consideration by the SRA. That may result in a disciplinary sanction or a referral to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal on the original facts and allegations. Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement may also constitute a separate breach of Principles 2, 6 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2011.

      Costs
      6.1. Mr Ojo agrees to pay the costs of the SRA's investigation in the sum of ?1350. Such costs are due within 28 days of a statement of costs due being issued by the SRA.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      16/10/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/103085.article?Decision=2017-10-16

      Outcome: Regulatory settlement agreement
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      Agreed outcome

      1.1. Mr Anthony Graeme Foot, a solicitor, agrees to the following outcome to the investigation of his conduct by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA):



      (a) he is rebuked

      (b) he is fined ?500

      (c) to the publication of this agreement

      (d) he will pay the costs of the investigation of ?600.





      Reasons/basis

      Summary of Facts

      2.1. On 31 January 2017 Mr Foot was convicted of driving with excess alcohol and driving a motor vehicle dangerously.

      2.2. The sentence was:



      (a) disqualification from driving for 20 months

      (b) a fine of ?1,025 for driving with excess alcohol

      (c) a fine of ?1,715 for driving a motor vehicle dangerously



      2.3. Mr Foot was also ordered to pay:



      (a) a victim surcharge of ?170

      (b) costs of ?85



      2.4. Mr Foot's behaviour resulting in his convictions involved his car being driven onto a railway line resulting in train delays and cancellations.

      Admissions

      3.1. Mr Foot admits, and the SRA accepts, that by virtue of his convictions for driving with excess alcohol and driving a motor vehicle dangerously, he has failed to uphold the rule of law in breach of Principle 1 of the SRA Principles 2011.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      12/10/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/134180.article?Decision=2017-11-02

      Outcome: Termination of suspension of PC/registration
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      The suspension of Mr Trevor Ward's practising certificate for 2016/2017 is terminated subject to the following conditions:



      Mr Ward may not act as a manager or owner of any authorised body or authorised non-SRA firm.

      Mr Ward can only authorise transfers to and from a firm's client account while under the supervision of a compliance officer or manager of the firm.



      In these conditions the definitions are as defined in the SRA Handbook Glossary 2012.

      Mr Ward was adjudged bankrupt at High Court on 20 September 2017. His 2016/2017 practising certificate was automatically suspended as a result.



      Reasons/basisThe above conditions are considered to be necessary in the public interest and reasonable and proportionate having regard to the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 and the regulatory objectives and principles governing regulatory activities as contained in section 28 of the Legal Services Act 2007.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      11/10/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/029626.article?Decision=2017-10-11

      Outcome: Referral to Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis

      This notification relates to a Decision to prosecute before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. This is an independent Tribunal which will reach its own decision after considering all the evidence, including any evidence put forward by the Solicitor. The Tribunal has certified that there is a case to answer in respect of allegations which are or include that he :-

      1. Failed to competently conduct an application that he made to the Court of Appeal Criminal Division (CACD) on the 28 August 2014 for leave to appeal against sentence and a confiscation order made on behalf of his client, Mr B in that he:

      1.1 Failed to follow the procedure laid down in R v McCook [2014] EWCA Crim 734 (R v McCook) whereby he was required to contact Mr B?s previous solicitors and counsel to ensure the facts presented by Mr B were correct;

      1.2 Drafted misleading and defective grounds of appeal (GoA) for leave to appeal against sentence and a confiscation order, the application being summarily dismissed by the CACD at a hearing on the 2 December 2012 on the basis that it was frivolous or vexatious;

      1.3 Failed to properly review Mr B?s application or contact his previous solicitors despite receiving a letter from the Registrar of Criminal Appeals (the Registrar) on the 11 September 2014 pointing out that on reading the grounds of appeal it was clear that the procedure in R v McCook had not been followed;

      1.4 Failed to respond to the Registrar?s letter dated 11 September 2014 or a chaser letter sent by the Registrar on the 30 September 2014 asking for an update on the appeal;

      1.5 Failed to withdraw Mr B?s application for leave to appeal when it should have been apparent to him that it was misconceived;

      2. He gave untruthful and / or misleading answers to the CACD when questioned about the application he had made on behalf of Mr B at the hearing on the 2 December 2014 in that he:

      2.1 Informed or implied to the CACD that counsel was instructed to respond to the letters from the registrar and that Counsel was instructed to perfect the grounds of appeal in circumstances where it was conceded by the Respondent that Counsel had never been instructed either to respond to the Registrar or to perfect the grounds of appeal;

      2.2 Informed the CACD that he believed that he only had one of the transcripts of previous court hearings before he drafted the defective GoA on the 28 August 2014 when in fact he had the transcripts of both court hearings;

      2.3 Informed the CACD that he had only read the transcripts of the previous court hearings ?just before and at the weekend gone? when in fact he had read the transcripts before he drafted the defective GoA on the 28 August 2014;

      3. When questioned by the SRA about which transcripts of court hearings he had in his possession at the time of drafting the GoA, he attempted to mislead them by stating in a letter dated 28 July 2015, that he received the transcript of the confiscation hearing (dated 9 November 2012) in around Mid-October 2014 when in fact he had received the transcript prior to drafting the defective GoA.

      The allegations are subject to a Hearing before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal and are as yet unproven.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      10/10/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/055400.article?Decision=2017-10-10

      Outcome: Referral to Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis



      This notification relates to a Decision to prosecute before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. This is an independent Tribunal which will reach its own decision after considering all the evidence, including any evidence put forward by the Solicitor. The Tribunal has certified that there is a case to answer in respect of allegations which are or include that:



      Between 31 October 2014 and 18 March 2016, the Firm acted on behalf of both the vendor and the purchaser in 26 conveyancing transactions which were conducted at arm's length between unconnected persons;

      Between October 2014 until October 2016, the Firm acted on behalf of both the vendor and the purchaser in 14 conveyancing transactions where it also acted as the selling agent for the vendor. In consequence, its own interests in each of those transactions conflicted with those of both its purchaser client and, where applicable, its mortgagee clients;

      Between 31 October 2014 and 18 November 2016, the Firm acted for both the vendor and the purchaser in 10 property transactions without advising either that it also acted for the other;

      Between 31 October 201 and 18 March 2016, the Firm acted for both the vendor and purchaser in 15 property transactions without advising its lender client of the position.



      The allegations are subject to a Hearing before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal and are as yet unproven.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      04/10/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/300417.article?Decision=2017-10-02

      Outcome: Intervention
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basisThe Panel was satisfied that there had been a failure by Mr Singh-Raud to comply with rules made under Section 31 of the Solicitors Act (paragraph 1 (1)(c) Schedule1 Part 1 Solicitors Act 1974) The Panel was also satisfied that it is necessary to intervene to protect the interest of clients of Mr Singh-Raud.?? Intervening agentsJohn Owen of

      Gordons LLP,

      Forward House, 8 Duke Street, Bradford, BD1 3QX has been appointed as the intervening agent.



      For enquiries please

      call

      or email

      intervention@gordonsllp.com.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      03/10/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/003244.article?Decision=2017-10-03

      Outcome: Regulatory settlement agreement
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis

      1.1. Mr Steve Binafeigha, a solicitor and sole principal of Binas Solicitors of Manchester (the Firm), agrees to the following outcome to the investigation of his conduct by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA):



      (a) he is rebuked

      (b) he is fined ?2,000

      (c) to the publication of this agreement

      (d) he will pay the costs of the investigation of ?600.



      Summary of Facts

      2.1. Mr Binafeigha is sole principal, Compliance Officer for Finance and Administration (COFA) and Compliance Officer for Legal Practice (COLP) at the Firm.

      2.2. Following submission of a qualified accountant's report, the SRA carried out an inspection of the Firm.

      Shortage

      2.3. The inspection established that, as at 31 October 2016, there was a shortage of ?945 in the Firm's client bank account. The shortage related to two matters:



      (a) The Firm acted for Mr Binafeigha in his personal capacity in a personal injury matter. In April 2016, a cheque of ?545 was sent from the client bank account to Manchester County Court. The Firm's client account did not contain any money for Mr Binafeigna. Therefore other clients' money held in the Firm's client account was used to make the payment.

      (b) In October 2016, the Firm received ?400 to pay for professional disbursements which it had incurred on behalf of a client. The Firm should either have used the ?400 to pay the disbursements or transferred it to its client account. It did neither.



      2.4. The shortage created on the above matters was rectified in early December 2016.

      Incorrect Books of Account

      2.5. The firm's books of account were unreliable and incomplete for the following reasons:



      (a) inaccurate entries were recorded on the client account cashbook

      (b) client ledgers were incomplete

      (c) entries on client ledgers did not reflect activity at the bank

      (d) inaccurate information was included on the client ledgers

      (e) there was inconsistent data between the client ledgers and the corresponding client matter listing.



      2.6. Since the inspection, the Firm has demonstrated that it has remedied the breaches identified. The firm has also made significant changes to its processes for maintaining its books of account.

      Admissions

      3.1. Mr Binafeigha makes the following admissions which the SRA accepts:



      (a) That by paying money out of client account to pay the Court fee for his own personal injury matter, he breached:



      (i) Principle 10 of the SRA Principles 2011 (the "Principles") and

      ii) Rules 1.2(c) and 20.6 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011 (the "Accounts Rules")



      (b) That by keeping ?400 received to pay professional disbursements which he had incurred in office account from October to December 2016 he breached Rule 17.1(b) of the Accounts Rules.

      (c) That because the Firm's books of account were inaccurate and incomplete he breached:



      (i) Principles 6 and 10 of the Principles and

      (ii) Rules 1.2(f) and 29.1 of the Accounts Rules.



      (d) That, as the Firm's COFA, he failed to put in place appropriate processes to ensure his and the Firm's compliance with the Accounts Rules and therefore breached Rule 8.5(e)(i)(A) of the SRA Authorisation Rules 2011.



      Why the agreed outcome is appropriate

      4.1. The SRA considers that the agreed outcome is appropriate as the conditions in Rule 3.1 of the SRA Disciplinary Rules 2011 are met, in that:



      (a) The conduct was related to a failure to comply with Mr Binafeigna's regulatory obligations and has the potential to cause loss to others.

      (b) The agreed outcome is a proportionate outcome in the public interest.

      (c) The conduct was neither trivial nor justifiably inadvertent.



      4.2. In deciding that the agreed outcome is proportionate, the SRA has taken into account the admissions made by Mr Binafeigha and the following mitigation which he has put forward:



      (a) He has cooperated with the SRA's investigation.

      (b) He has demonstrated that he has rectified the breaches identified by the inspection.

      (c) He has reviewed the Firm's processes and procedures and has made significant changes to reduce the likelihood of similar breaches occurring again.



      4.3. The amount of the fine takes into account all relevant circumstances, including those set out in Appendix 1 to the SRA Disciplinary Procedure Rules 2011.

      4.4. The SRA considers it appropriate that this agreement is published in the interests of transparency in the regulatory and disciplinary process.

      Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this Agreement

      5.1. Mr Binafeigha agrees that he will not act in any way which is inconsistent with this agreement such as, for example, by denying the admissions made in this agreement.

      5.2. If Mr Binafeigha acts in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement, the conduct which is subject to this agreement may be subject to further consideration by the SRA. That may result in a disciplinary sanction or a referral to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal on the original facts and allegations. Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement may also constitute a separate breach of Principles 2, 6 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2011.

      Costs

      6.1. Mr Binafeigha agrees to pay the costs of the SRA's investigation in the sum of ?600. Such costs are due within 28 days of a statement of costs due being issued by the SRA.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      02/10/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/021534.article?Decision=2017-10-02

      Outcome: Intervention
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details

      To intervene into the practice of Brian Milner-Lunt.

      Reasons/basis



      The Panel was satisfied that grounds for intervention existed under Paragraph 1(1)(a)(i) of Schedule 1 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended) as there was reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of Brian Milner-Lunt in connection with his practice as a solicitor.

      The Panel was satisfied that grounds for intervention existed under Paragraph 1(1)(c) of Schedule 1 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended) as Brian Milner-Lunt had failed to comply with the rules made under sections 31 and 32 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended).

      The Panel was satisfied that grounds for intervention existed under Paragraph 1(1)(d) of Schedule 1 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended) as Brian Milner-Lunt was adjudged bankrupt on 7 June 2017.



      Intervening agents

      Paul Caldicott of

      Blake Morgan LLP,

      New Kings Court, Tollgate, Eastleigh, Hampshire, SO53 3LG has been appointed as the intervening agent.



      For enquiries please

      call

      023 8085 7270 or email

      interventions@blakemorgan.co.uk.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      26/09/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/275580.article?Decision=2017-09-26

      Outcome: Referral to Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis



      Outcome of SDT Hearing



      This notification relates to a Decision to prosecute before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. This is an independent Tribunal which reaches its own decision after considering all the evidence, including any evidence put forward by the Respondent. The Tribunal had certified that there was a case to answer.

      The matter was heard on 9 May 2018.

      Mr.Ingle was Struck Off the Roll.

      The SDT judgment will be available at www.solicitorstribunal.org.uk

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      26/09/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/597652.article?Decision=2017-09-26

      Outcome: Intervention
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details

      The Adjudication Panel decided to intervene into the practice of Premium Law Solicitors Limited.

      Reasons/basis



      The Adjudication Panel is satisfied in accordance with paragraph 32(1)(a) of Schedule 2 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 that Shazia Anjum, as the manager of Premium Law Solicitors Limited has failed to comply with the SRA Principles 2011, the SRA Code of Conduct 2011 and the SRA Accounts Rules 2011 which are applicable rules under section 9 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (as amended); and

      The Adjudication Panel is satisfied in accordance with paragraph 32(1)(d) that there is reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of Shazia Anjum, a manager of Premium Law Solicitors Limited, in connection with the firm's business.





      Intervening agents

      Marion Vesey of

      Shacklocks LLP,

      St Peter's House, Bridge Street, Mansfield, NG18 1AL has been appointed as the intervening agent.



      For enquiries please

      call

      01623 423073 or email

      interventionpremiumlaw@shacklocks.co.uk.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      26/09/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/494075.article?Decision=2018-05-04

      Outcome: Intervention
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details

      Decision to intervene into practice.

      Reasons/basis

      The Adjudication Panel is satisfied that grounds for intervention existed under Paragraph 1(1)(a) of Schedule 1 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended) that there is reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of Shazia Anjum in connection with her practice as a solicitor.

      The Adjudication Panel is satisfied that grounds for intervention existed under Paragraph 1(1)(c) of Schedule 1 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended) that Shazia Anjum has failed to comply with the SRA Principles 2011, the Solicitors Code of Conduct 2011 and the SRA Accounts Rules 2011 which are rules made under section 31 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended).

      Intervening agents

      Marion Vesey of

      Shacklocks LLP,

      St Peter's House, Bridge Street, Mansfield, NG18 1AL has been appointed as the intervening agent.



      For enquiries please

      call

      or email

      interventionpremiumlaw@shacklocks.co.uk.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      21/09/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/561550.article?Decision=2017-09-21

      Outcome: Rebuke
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      BBH (Legal Services) Limited is a limited company whose head office is at Eastham Hall, 109 Eastham Village Road, Eastham, Wirral, Cheshire.

      The firm did not follow its own policies for identifying a client and did not report to the SRA the consequences of failing to do so.

      The firm was found to have breached Principles 7 and 8 of the SRA Principles 2011 and failed to achieve Outcome 10.3 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011.

      BBH (Legal Services) Limited was issued with a written rebuke. It was ordered to pay costs of ?1,350.00.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      13/09/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/029866.article?Decision=2018-04-05

      Outcome: Condition
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      Mr Habib-Ur-Rahmann Maroof is subject to Regulation 3 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011.

      Mr Maroof's practising certificate for 2016/2017 is subject to the following conditions which are necessary, reasonable and proportionate in the public interest:



      (i)Mr Maroof may act as a solicitor, only as an employee.

      (ii)Mr Maroof is not a sole practitioner or manager or owner of an authorised body.

      (iii) Mr Maroof shall immediately inform any actual or prospective employer of these conditions and the reasons for their imposition



      In these conditions the definitions are as defined in the SRA Handbook Glossary 2012.



      Reasons/basisThe above conditions are considered to be necessary in the public interest and reasonable and proportionate having regard to the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 and the regulatory objectives and principles governing regulatory activities as contained in section 28 of the Legal Services Act 2007.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      12/09/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/347570.article?Decision=2017-09-12

      Outcome: Referral to Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis

      This notification relates to a Decision to prosecute before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. This is an independent Tribunal which will reach its own decision after considering all the evidence, including any evidence put forward by the Solicitor. The Tribunal has certified that there is a case to answer in respect of allegations which are or include that while in practice as a Partner in and/ or as a Former Partner in Alpha Rocks Solicitors ("the Firm"):



      During a hearing in June 2016, he provided false and/ or misleading information to the Court;

      He caused or allowed a bill of costs dated 18 April 2010 to be raised and delivered to Client A in the RA Matter which contained items which should not legitimately have been charged to Client A;

      Between April 2008 and February 2010 he acted for Client A in the RA Matter when he did not possess the necessary skills, competence and experience;



      The allegations are subject to a Hearing before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal and are as yet unproven.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      12/09/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/386024.article?Decision=2017-09-08

      Outcome: Intervention
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details

      To intervene into the practice of Lauren Ruth Anderson at Anderson & Moores Consultancy & Mediation Services Limited

      Reasons/basis

      The grounds for intervention are:



      1) that Lauren Anderson has failed to comply with rules made under sections 31 of the Solicitors Act 1974;

      2) that Lauren Anderson has failed to comply with a practising certificate condition of approved employment.



      Intervening agents

      Neal Boland of

      Stephensons,

      Address Wigan Investment Centre, Waterside drive, Wigan, WN3 5BA has been appointed as the intervening agent.



      For enquiries please

      call

      or email

      sraenquiries@stephensons.co.uk.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      08/09/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/092670.article?Decision=2017-09-08

      Outcome: Regulatory settlement agreement
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis

      1. Bendika Johal, John Edward Samuel Goodall and Tara Nicolette Clifford of Johal & Co of 5 - 7 Northolt Road, Harrow, Middlesex, HA2 0LH (?the Partners?) agree to the following outcome of the investigation into their professional conduct under reference TRI/1186225-2017.

      Background

      2. On 12 May 2015, the Forensic Investigation Unit of the Solicitors Regulation Authority ("SRA") carried out an inspection of the Firm and produced a Report dated 16 August 2016 ("the Report").

      3. The Report identified that the books of account were not in compliance with the Solicitors Accounts Rules 1998 in the period up to October 2011 and the SRA Accounts Rules 2011 in the period after October 2011. As at the extraction date of 30 April 2015, there was a minimum cash shortage on client account in the sum of ?399,878.29 and the IO concluded that it was not practicable to rely on the books of account.

      4. The minimum cash shortage was caused by misappropriation of client monies by Anthony Maragh. Mr Maragh was an admitted paralegal at the firm dealing exclusively with residential conveyancing matters. Mr Maragh had been employed by Johal & Co for 14 years until he was suspended by the firm on 24 April 2015. His employment was terminated on 27 April 2015.

      Evasion of Stamp Duty Land Tax

      5. The Investigation Officer ("IO") noted that during a period of at least 1 January 2008 to 2013, Mr Maragh had under declared property values on 43 SDLT forms he submitted to HM Revenue & Customs ("HMRC") in order to reduce the Stamp Duty Land Tax ("SDLT") payable. The firm's clients had paid the correct SDLT amounts to the firm. In under declaring property values on the SDLT forms, tax was evaded and misappropriated by Mr Maragh.

      6. HMRC calculated that as at 30 April 2015, Mr Maragh had failed to pay ?333,589 in SDLT, which had been due. Mr Maragh transferred the money to a bank account for his own benefit and made payments to third parties who had no connection to the client matters.

      7. On reviewing the client ledger accounts relating to the 43 SDLT matters, the IO noted that the firm had not received a total of ?8,250 for SDLT from clients in two matters. The review also indicated that money received from clients totalling ?830 for the payment of SDLT had been returned to clients. Whilst HMRC had calculated that Mr Maragh had failed to pay ?333,589 in SDLT, the IO calculated that as at 30 April 2015, Mr Maragh had failed to pay ?324,509 in SDLT (after taking into account payments not received by the firm and payments returned to clients). This resulted in a shortage on client bank account in the amount of ?324,509, which remained outstanding as at

      29 February 2016.

      General cash shortage

      8. In addition to the shortage identified above, the IO identified a further minimum general cash shortage on the firm's client bank account in the sum of ?32,576.80. The cause of the general cash shortage is detailed below.

      9. Seven payments were made from client ledgers, which exceeded the money held on the client ledger for the payment of SDLT. This caused a further shortage on client account in the sum of ?15,856.84.

      10. The IO reviewed other client ledgers, which did not form part of the 43 matters identified by HMRC. The IO identified transfers totalling ?16,719.96, which were made by Mr Maragh to bank accounts in the name of "PL" and "CW" between 2008 and 2015. The monies had originally been received by the firm on account of costs. On some matters, clients did not proceed with the transactions. Mr Maragh transferred the costs to third parties unconnected with the clients instead of returning costs to clients. In other matters where balances were left on client ledger accounts following completion, Mr Maragh transferred the balances to third parties unconnected with the clients when the monies should have been returned to clients. This caused a further shortage on client account in the sum of ?16,719.96.

      11. The minimum general cash shortage was replaced on 6 June 2016 when the partners made a transfer from office bank account to client bank account.

      Other conveyancing matters

      12. Seven further transactions were identified in which Mr Maragh had made ten transfers totalling ?42,792.49 from the firm's client bank account during 2014 to an account in the name of "CW", which was a joint account operated by Mr Maragh. The transfers related to property transactions in which Mr Maragh had misappropriated money and were not connected to the HMRC investigation. As at the extraction date (30 April 2015), a further cash shortage of ?42,792.49 existed on the firm's client bank account.

      13. On 12 May 2015, the firm received ?17,000 from Mr Maragh towards replacing this cash shortage. On 14 May 2015, the partners transferred ?25,792.49 from office bank account to client bank account replacing the cash shortage of ?42,792.49. Mr Maragh reimbursed the firm in the sum of ?27,542.49 on

      14 August 2015.

      Accounting procedures

      14. Between 1 January 2008 and the end of 2013, Mr Maragh under declared property values on 43 SDLT forms and transferred money for SDLT totalling ?324,509. During the period of at least 1 January 2008 to 24 April 2015, Mr Maragh made 64 payments totalling ?75,369.29 from client bank account for his own benefit and to various third parties from the firm's general client monies.

      15. The IO reviewed documents, which showed that Mr Maragh made 107 payments from the firm's client bank account of which 69 were made by CHAPS transfer, and 38 by client account cheque. Of the 69 CHAPS transfers, Mr Maragh was the "authorised signature" on 57 instructions forms before October 2013. After October 2013, Mrs Clifford was the authorised signature on 11 forms and Mrs Johal the authorised signature on one form.

      16. Mr Maragh was not a signatory to the firm's client bank account but had been able to authorise CHAPS transfers from client bank account without the need for approval or review from the firm's partners. Mr Maragh also had unrestricted access to the banking device, which generated authorisation codes for transactions. This continued up until spring 2013. Mr Maragh was able to complete and sign CHAPS transfer instructions, generate authorisation codes and fax instructions forms to the bank, which authorised payments from the firm's client bank account. The firm changed this procedure in 2013 so that only partners could sign fax payments. In relation to payments by cheque, the partners were the only individuals who had the authority to sign cheques.

      17. On 26 October 2015, Mr Maragh was convicted upon indictment of "Making false statements tending to prejudice her Majesty the Queen and the public revenue with intent to defraud her Majesty the Queen". He was sentenced on 13 November 2015 to 40 month's imprisonment.

      18. On 26 May 2016, a Confiscation Order was made against Mr Maragh and he was ordered to pay the sum of ?125,500. The value of the benefit was declared to be ?310,093.

      19. On 9 January 2017, an authorised officer considered the Report and the

      explanations received from the Firm and resolved that proceedings should be taken at the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal against Mrs Johal, Mr Goodall,

      Mrs Clifford and Mr Maragh.

      20. The decision to take proceedings at the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal against Mrs Johal, Mr Goodall and Mrs Clifford will be rescinded upon the basis of them entering into this Agreement.

      21. The decision to take proceedings at the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal against Mr Maragh will be rescinded and his conduct will be considered by the SRA internally, as it is the SRA?s case that he was primarily responsible for the matters set out at paragraphs 2 to 16 above.

      Admissions

      22. Bendika Johal, John Edward Samuel Goodall and Tara Nicolette Clifford make, and the SRA accepts, the following admissions:



      22.1 In allowing Anthony Maragh to authorise CHAPS transfers from client bank account between 1 January 2008 to 24 April 2015, without approval from the firm's partners, they:



      22.1.1 Allowed client money to be withdrawn from client bank account otherwise than in accordance with Rules 22 and 23 of the

      Solicitors Accounts Rules 1998 in the period up to October 2011 and Rule 20.1 SRA Accounts Rules in the period after October 2011;

      22.1.2 Allowed client money to be transferred and misused contrary to Rule 1(c) of the Solicitors Accounts Rules 1998 in the period up to October 2011 and Rule 1.2 (c) of the SRA Accounts

      Rules in the period after October 2011;

      22.1.3 Failed to establish and maintain proper accounting systems,

      and proper internal controls over those systems, to ensure

      compliance with the rules contrary to Rule 1(e) Solicitors

      Accounts Rules 1998 in the period up to October 2011 and Rule 1.2(e) of the SRA Accounts Rules in the period after October 2011; and

      22.1.4 Failed to protect client money and assets contrary to Principle 10 SRA Principles 2011.



      22.2 Between 1 January 2008 to 24 April 2015 they:



      22.2.1 Failed to make arrangements for the effective management of the firm as a whole, and in particular provide for the management of risk contrary to Rule 5.01(l) of the SCC 2007 in the period up to October 2011; and

      22.2.2 Failed to run their business or carry out their role in the business effectively and in accordance with proper governance and sound financial and risk management principles in breach of Principle 8 of SRA Principles and failed to achieve

      Outcome O(7.3) of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011 in the period

      after October 2011.



      22.3 Between 1 January 2008 to 24 April 2015, they failed to ensure compliance with the rules by everyone employed by the firm in breach of Rule 6 of the Solicitors Accounts Rules 1998 in the period up to October 2011 and Rule 6.1 SRA Accounts Rules in the period after October 2011.

      22.4 They failed to remedy breaches of the Accounts Rules promptly upon discovery in breach of Rule 7 SRA Accounts Rules 2011 in that they failed to replace client shortages in the sums of ?324,509 and ?32,576.80 promptly.



      Mitigation

      23. Mrs Johal, Mrs Clifford and Mr Goodall put forward the following by way of mitigation for the breaches admitted above.

      24. Mr Maragh was able to exploit the firm's accounting system by completing the fax instructions to the bank, as he would do for any other matter and provide an explanation for the payments such as "service charge", "broker fee" or "managing agent's fee". There was no reason for the partners to doubt the explanations for the payments and Mr Maragh also gave a verbal explanation for the payments. Given that a large volume of other transactions, which Mr Maragh requested, were valid, it was difficult to differentiate between valid requests and fraudulent transactions.

      25. The relative infrequency of instructions, which was approximately ten a year to "CW" made it difficult for the firm to identify a pattern, particularly as Mr Maragh would submit a number of CHAPS fax instructions weekly as part of his work. This meant that the CHAPS fax instructions to "CW" did not stand out to the firm. The fraudulent transactions were a fraction of the overall number of payments made in the conveyancing department and were not detected.

      26. Mr Maragh was a key member of staff. There was a level of trust and respect for Mr Maragh, as he was handling a heavy caseload and worked long hours for the firm. There was no reason to doubt Mr Maragh's integrity.

      27. Following the discovery of Mr Maragh's actions, the firm changed its accounts procedures and payment procedures. Additional checks are being made in conveyancing matters before authorisation for payments is given.

      28. The partners did not replace the shortages on client account promptly upon discovery as they were awaiting confirmation from HMRC as to whether funds would be recovered from Mr Maragh and there was also a dispute in respect of the figures provided by HMRC. The partners also notified their insurers of the shortages and were waiting to hear from them. The shortage of ?42,792.49, which existed as at 30 April 2015, was replaced on 12 and 14 May 2015.

      29. Clients have been reimbursed and did not complain to the firm. Some of the clients who were affected by the fraud continued to instruct the firm.

      Regulatory Outcome

      30. Mrs Johal, Mr Goodall and Mrs Clifford have accepted the above breaches and the admissions set out in paragraph 22 above, is proportionate in all the circumstances.

      31. Mrs Johal is rebuked and fined ?2,000 for the breaches identified in paragraph 22 above. Mr Goodall and Mrs Clifford are rebuked and each fined ?1000 for the breaches identified in paragraph 22 above.

      32. Mrs Johal, Mr Goodall and Mrs Clifford agree that this outcome will be published by the SRA and that it may also be disclosed to any person upon request or otherwise.

      33. Mrs Johal, Mr Goodall and Mrs Clifford agree to pay the costs of the investigation, including the SRA?s legal costs, in the sum of ?9,000, on a joint and several basis within 28 days of a statement of costs due being issued by the SRA.

      34. Mrs Johal, Mr Goodall and Mrs Clifford agree they will not act in any way that is inconsistent with this agreement by, for example, denying the misconduct admitted in paragraph 22 above.

      35. If Mrs Johal, Mr Goodall or Mrs Clifford act inconsistently in any way with this agreement, they accept that all issues may be referred back to the SRA for reconsideration, including that there be referral to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal or SRA internal sanction on the original facts and allegations and also on the basis that such failure to comply constitutes a breach of Principles 2, 6 and 7 SRA Principles 2011.

      The date of this agreement is 8 September 2017.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      08/09/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/136142.article?Decision=2017-09-08

      Outcome: Regulatory settlement agreement
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis

      1. Bendika Johal, John Edward Samuel Goodall and Tara Nicolette Clifford of Johal & Co of 5 - 7 Northolt Road, Harrow, Middlesex, HA2 0LH (?the Partners?) agree to the following outcome of the investigation into their professional conduct under reference TRI/1186225-2017.

      Background

      2. On 12 May 2015, the Forensic Investigation Unit of the Solicitors Regulation Authority ("SRA") carried out an inspection of the Firm and produced a Report dated 16 August 2016 ("the Report").

      3. The Report identified that the books of account were not in compliance with the Solicitors Accounts Rules 1998 in the period up to October 2011 and the SRA Accounts Rules 2011 in the period after October 2011. As at the extraction date of 30 April 2015, there was a minimum cash shortage on client account in the sum of ?399,878.29 and the IO concluded that it was not practicable to rely on the books of account.

      4. The minimum cash shortage was caused by misappropriation of client monies by Anthony Maragh. Mr Maragh was an admitted paralegal at the firm dealing exclusively with residential conveyancing matters. Mr Maragh had been employed by Johal & Co for 14 years until he was suspended by the firm on 24 April 2015. His employment was terminated on 27 April 2015.

      Evasion of Stamp Duty Land Tax

      5. The Investigation Officer ("IO") noted that during a period of at least 1 January 2008 to 2013, Mr Maragh had under declared property values on 43 SDLT forms he submitted to HM Revenue & Customs ("HMRC") in order to reduce the Stamp Duty Land Tax ("SDLT") payable. The firm's clients had paid the correct SDLT amounts to the firm. In under declaring property values on the SDLT forms, tax was evaded and misappropriated by Mr Maragh.

      6. HMRC calculated that as at 30 April 2015, Mr Maragh had failed to pay ?333,589 in SDLT, which had been due. Mr Maragh transferred the money to a bank account for his own benefit and made payments to third parties who had no connection to the client matters.

      7. On reviewing the client ledger accounts relating to the 43 SDLT matters, the IO noted that the firm had not received a total of ?8,250 for SDLT from clients in two matters. The review also indicated that money received from clients totalling ?830 for the payment of SDLT had been returned to clients. Whilst HMRC had calculated that Mr Maragh had failed to pay ?333,589 in SDLT, the IO calculated that as at 30 April 2015, Mr Maragh had failed to pay ?324,509 in SDLT (after taking into account payments not received by the firm and payments returned to clients). This resulted in a shortage on client bank account in the amount of ?324,509, which remained outstanding as at

      29 February 2016.

      General cash shortage

      8. In addition to the shortage identified above, the IO identified a further minimum general cash shortage on the firm's client bank account in the sum of ?32,576.80. The cause of the general cash shortage is detailed below.

      9. Seven payments were made from client ledgers, which exceeded the money held on the client ledger for the payment of SDLT. This caused a further shortage on client account in the sum of ?15,856.84.

      10. The IO reviewed other client ledgers, which did not form part of the 43 matters identified by HMRC. The IO identified transfers totalling ?16,719.96, which were made by Mr Maragh to bank accounts in the name of "PL" and "CW" between 2008 and 2015. The monies had originally been received by the firm on account of costs. On some matters, clients did not proceed with the transactions. Mr Maragh transferred the costs to third parties unconnected with the clients instead of returning costs to clients. In other matters where balances were left on client ledger accounts following completion, Mr Maragh transferred the balances to third parties unconnected with the clients when the monies should have been returned to clients. This caused a further shortage on client account in the sum of ?16,719.96.

      11. The minimum general cash shortage was replaced on 6 June 2016 when the partners made a transfer from office bank account to client bank account.

      Other conveyancing matters

      12. Seven further transactions were identified in which Mr Maragh had made ten transfers totalling ?42,792.49 from the firm's client bank account during 2014 to an account in the name of "CW", which was a joint account operated by Mr Maragh. The transfers related to property transactions in which Mr Maragh had misappropriated money and were not connected to the HMRC investigation. As at the extraction date (30 April 2015), a further cash shortage of ?42,792.49 existed on the firm's client bank account.

      13. On 12 May 2015, the firm received ?17,000 from Mr Maragh towards replacing this cash shortage. On 14 May 2015, the partners transferred ?25,792.49 from office bank account to client bank account replacing the cash shortage of ?42,792.49. Mr Maragh reimbursed the firm in the sum of ?27,542.49 on

      14 August 2015.

      Accounting procedures

      14. Between 1 January 2008 and the end of 2013, Mr Maragh under declared property values on 43 SDLT forms and transferred money for SDLT totalling ?324,509. During the period of at least 1 January 2008 to 24 April 2015, Mr Maragh made 64 payments totalling ?75,369.29 from client bank account for his own benefit and to various third parties from the firm's general client monies.

      15. The IO reviewed documents, which showed that Mr Maragh made 107 payments from the firm's client bank account of which 69 were made by CHAPS transfer, and 38 by client account cheque. Of the 69 CHAPS transfers, Mr Maragh was the "authorised signature" on 57 instructions forms before October 2013. After October 2013, Mrs Clifford was the authorised signature on 11 forms and Mrs Johal the authorised signature on one form.

      16. Mr Maragh was not a signatory to the firm's client bank account but had been able to authorise CHAPS transfers from client bank account without the need for approval or review from the firm's partners. Mr Maragh also had unrestricted access to the banking device, which generated authorisation codes for transactions. This continued up until spring 2013. Mr Maragh was able to complete and sign CHAPS transfer instructions, generate authorisation codes and fax instructions forms to the bank, which authorised payments from the firm's client bank account. The firm changed this procedure in 2013 so that only partners could sign fax payments. In relation to payments by cheque, the partners were the only individuals who had the authority to sign cheques.

      17. On 26 October 2015, Mr Maragh was convicted upon indictment of "Making false statements tending to prejudice her Majesty the Queen and the public revenue with intent to defraud her Majesty the Queen". He was sentenced on 13 November 2015 to 40 month's imprisonment.

      18. On 26 May 2016, a Confiscation Order was made against Mr Maragh and he was ordered to pay the sum of ?125,500. The value of the benefit was declared to be ?310,093.

      19. On 9 January 2017, an authorised officer considered the Report and the

      explanations received from the Firm and resolved that proceedings should be taken at the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal against Mrs Johal, Mr Goodall,

      Mrs Clifford and Mr Maragh.

      20. The decision to take proceedings at the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal against Mrs Johal, Mr Goodall and Mrs Clifford will be rescinded upon the basis of them entering into this Agreement.

      21. The decision to take proceedings at the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal against Mr Maragh will be rescinded and his conduct will be considered by the SRA internally, as it is the SRA?s case that he was primarily responsible for the matters set out at paragraphs 2 to 16 above.

      Admissions

      22. Bendika Johal, John Edward Samuel Goodall and Tara Nicolette Clifford make, and the SRA accepts, the following admissions:



      22.1 In allowing Anthony Maragh to authorise CHAPS transfers from client bank account between 1 January 2008 to 24 April 2015, without approval from the firm's partners, they:



      22.1.1 Allowed client money to be withdrawn from client bank account otherwise than in accordance with Rules 22 and 23 of the

      Solicitors Accounts Rules 1998 in the period up to October 2011 and Rule 20.1 SRA Accounts Rules in the period after October 2011;

      22.1.2 Allowed client money to be transferred and misused contrary to Rule 1(c) of the Solicitors Accounts Rules 1998 in the period up to October 2011 and Rule 1.2 (c) of the SRA Accounts

      Rules in the period after October 2011;

      22.1.3 Failed to establish and maintain proper accounting systems,

      and proper internal controls over those systems, to ensure

      compliance with the rules contrary to Rule 1(e) Solicitors

      Accounts Rules 1998 in the period up to October 2011 and Rule 1.2(e) of the SRA Accounts Rules in the period after October 2011; and

      22.1.4 Failed to protect client money and assets contrary to Principle 10 SRA Principles 2011.



      22.2 Between 1 January 2008 to 24 April 2015 they:



      22.2.1 Failed to make arrangements for the effective management of the firm as a whole, and in particular provide for the management of risk contrary to Rule 5.01(l) of the SCC 2007 in the period up to October 2011; and

      22.2.2 Failed to run their business or carry out their role in the business effectively and in accordance with proper governance and sound financial and risk management principles in breach of Principle 8 of SRA Principles and failed to achieve

      Outcome O(7.3) of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011 in the period

      after October 2011.



      22.3 Between 1 January 2008 to 24 April 2015, they failed to ensure compliance with the rules by everyone employed by the firm in breach of Rule 6 of the Solicitors Accounts Rules 1998 in the period up to October 2011 and Rule 6.1 SRA Accounts Rules in the period after October 2011.

      22.4 They failed to remedy breaches of the Accounts Rules promptly upon discovery in breach of Rule 7 SRA Accounts Rules 2011 in that they failed to replace client shortages in the sums of ?324,509 and ?32,576.80 promptly.



      Mitigation

      23. Mrs Johal, Mrs Clifford and Mr Goodall put forward the following by way of mitigation for the breaches admitted above.

      24. Mr Maragh was able to exploit the firm's accounting system by completing the fax instructions to the bank, as he would do for any other matter and provide an explanation for the payments such as "service charge", "broker fee" or "managing agent's fee". There was no reason for the partners to doubt the explanations for the payments and Mr Maragh also gave a verbal explanation for the payments. Given that a large volume of other transactions, which Mr Maragh requested, were valid, it was difficult to differentiate between valid requests and fraudulent transactions.

      25. The relative infrequency of instructions, which was approximately ten a year to "CW" made it difficult for the firm to identify a pattern, particularly as Mr Maragh would submit a number of CHAPS fax instructions weekly as part of his work. This meant that the CHAPS fax instructions to "CW" did not stand out to the firm. The fraudulent transactions were a fraction of the overall number of payments made in the conveyancing department and were not detected.

      26. Mr Maragh was a key member of staff. There was a level of trust and respect for Mr Maragh, as he was handling a heavy caseload and worked long hours for the firm. There was no reason to doubt Mr Maragh's integrity.

      27. Following the discovery of Mr Maragh's actions, the firm changed its accounts procedures and payment procedures. Additional checks are being made in conveyancing matters before authorisation for payments is given.

      28. The partners did not replace the shortages on client account promptly upon discovery as they were awaiting confirmation from HMRC as to whether funds would be recovered from Mr Maragh and there was also a dispute in respect of the figures provided by HMRC. The partners also notified their insurers of the shortages and were waiting to hear from them. The shortage of ?42,792.49, which existed as at 30 April 2015, was replaced on 12 and 14 May 2015.

      29. Clients have been reimbursed and did not complain to the firm. Some of the clients who were affected by the fraud continued to instruct the firm.

      Regulatory Outcome

      30. Mrs Johal, Mr Goodall and Mrs Clifford have accepted the above breaches and the admissions set out in paragraph 22 above, is proportionate in all the circumstances.

      31. Mrs Johal is rebuked and fined ?2,000 for the breaches identified in paragraph 22 above. Mr Goodall and Mrs Clifford are rebuked and each fined ?1000 for the breaches identified in paragraph 22 above.

      32. Mrs Johal, Mr Goodall and Mrs Clifford agree that this outcome will be published by the SRA and that it may also be disclosed to any person upon request or otherwise.

      33. Mrs Johal, Mr Goodall and Mrs Clifford agree to pay the costs of the investigation, including the SRA?s legal costs, in the sum of ?9,000, on a joint and several basis within 28 days of a statement of costs due being issued by the SRA.

      34. Mrs Johal, Mr Goodall and Mrs Clifford agree they will not act in any way that is inconsistent with this agreement by, for example, denying the misconduct admitted in paragraph 22 above.

      35. If Mrs Johal, Mr Goodall or Mrs Clifford act inconsistently in any way with this agreement, they accept that all issues may be referred back to the SRA for reconsideration, including that there be referral to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal or SRA internal sanction on the original facts and allegations and also on the basis that such failure to comply constitutes a breach of Principles 2, 6 and 7 SRA Principles 2011.

      The date of this agreement is 8 September 2017.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      08/09/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/082864.article?Decision=2017-09-08

      Outcome: Intervention
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basisThe Panel was satisfied that grounds for intervention existed under Paragraph 1(1)(m) of Schedule 1 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended) namely that it was necessary to intervene to protect the interests of Ms Lancaster's clients (or former clients) or the beneficiaries of any trust of which he is or was a trustee.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      08/09/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/386024.article?Decision=2017-09-08

      Outcome: Referral to Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis

      This notification relates to a Decision to prosecute before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. This is an independent Tribunal which will reach its own decision after considering all the evidence, including any evidence put forward by the Solicitor. The Tribunal has certified that there is a case to answer in respect of allegations which are or include that:



      Between 1 January 2016 and 8 September 2017, she conducted reserved legal activities in circumstances where she was not authorised to do so and in breach of conditions which were on her practising certificate at the time;

      Between 1 January 2016 and 8 September 2017, she conducted reserved legal activities in circumstances where she did not have adequate professional indemnity insurance cover in place to do so;

      She allowed, and was responsible for, the website ?www.amcm.co.uk? to appear online to describe and promote Anderson & Moores Consultancy and Mediation Services Limited, providing misleading information by giving the impression that Anderson & Moores Consultancy and Mediation Services Limited was authorised and regulated by the SRA when it was an unregulated company.

      Between 1 May 2017 and 30 June 2017, she provided false and/or misleading information to the SRA in respect of the work she had been undertaking.



      The allegations are subject to a Hearing before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal and are as yet unproven.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      08/09/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/105650.article?Decision=2017-09-08

      Outcome: Intervention
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basisThe Panel was satisfied that grounds for intervention existed under Paragraph 1(1)(m) of Schedule 1 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended) namely that it was necessary to intervene to protect the interests of Mr Wright's clients (or former clients) or the beneficiaries of any trust of which he is or was a trustee.Other informationPlease note that Mr Wright is deceased.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      08/09/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/228016.article?Decision=2017-09-08

      Outcome: Regulatory settlement agreement
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis

      1. Bendika Johal, John Edward Samuel Goodall and Tara Nicolette Clifford of Johal & Co of 5 - 7 Northolt Road, Harrow, Middlesex, HA2 0LH (?the Partners?) agree to the following outcome of the investigation into their professional conduct under reference TRI/1186225-2017.

      Background

      2. On 12 May 2015, the Forensic Investigation Unit of the Solicitors Regulation Authority ("SRA") carried out an inspection of the Firm and produced a Report dated 16 August 2016 ("the Report").

      3. The Report identified that the books of account were not in compliance with the Solicitors Accounts Rules 1998 in the period up to October 2011 and the SRA Accounts Rules 2011 in the period after October 2011. As at the extraction date of 30 April 2015, there was a minimum cash shortage on client account in the sum of ?399,878.29 and the IO concluded that it was not practicable to rely on the books of account.

      4. The minimum cash shortage was caused by misappropriation of client monies by Anthony Maragh. Mr Maragh was an admitted paralegal at the firm dealing exclusively with residential conveyancing matters. Mr Maragh had been employed by Johal & Co for 14 years until he was suspended by the firm on 24 April 2015. His employment was terminated on 27 April 2015.

      Evasion of Stamp Duty Land Tax

      5. The Investigation Officer ("IO") noted that during a period of at least 1 January 2008 to 2013, Mr Maragh had under declared property values on 43 SDLT forms he submitted to HM Revenue & Customs ("HMRC") in order to reduce the Stamp Duty Land Tax ("SDLT") payable. The firm's clients had paid the correct SDLT amounts to the firm. In under declaring property values on the SDLT forms, tax was evaded and misappropriated by Mr Maragh.

      6. HMRC calculated that as at 30 April 2015, Mr Maragh had failed to pay ?333,589 in SDLT, which had been due. Mr Maragh transferred the money to a bank account for his own benefit and made payments to third parties who had no connection to the client matters.

      7. On reviewing the client ledger accounts relating to the 43 SDLT matters, the IO noted that the firm had not received a total of ?8,250 for SDLT from clients in two matters. The review also indicated that money received from clients totalling ?830 for the payment of SDLT had been returned to clients. Whilst HMRC had calculated that Mr Maragh had failed to pay ?333,589 in SDLT, the IO calculated that as at 30 April 2015, Mr Maragh had failed to pay ?324,509 in SDLT (after taking into account payments not received by the firm and payments returned to clients). This resulted in a shortage on client bank account in the amount of ?324,509, which remained outstanding as at

      29 February 2016.

      General cash shortage

      8. In addition to the shortage identified above, the IO identified a further minimum general cash shortage on the firm's client bank account in the sum of ?32,576.80. The cause of the general cash shortage is detailed below.

      9. Seven payments were made from client ledgers, which exceeded the money held on the client ledger for the payment of SDLT. This caused a further shortage on client account in the sum of ?15,856.84.

      10. The IO reviewed other client ledgers, which did not form part of the 43 matters identified by HMRC. The IO identified transfers totalling ?16,719.96, which were made by Mr Maragh to bank accounts in the name of "PL" and "CW" between 2008 and 2015. The monies had originally been received by the firm on account of costs. On some matters, clients did not proceed with the transactions. Mr Maragh transferred the costs to third parties unconnected with the clients instead of returning costs to clients. In other matters where balances were left on client ledger accounts following completion, Mr Maragh transferred the balances to third parties unconnected with the clients when the monies should have been returned to clients. This caused a further shortage on client account in the sum of ?16,719.96.

      11. The minimum general cash shortage was replaced on 6 June 2016 when the partners made a transfer from office bank account to client bank account.

      Other conveyancing matters

      12. Seven further transactions were identified in which Mr Maragh had made ten transfers totalling ?42,792.49 from the firm's client bank account during 2014 to an account in the name of "CW", which was a joint account operated by Mr Maragh. The transfers related to property transactions in which Mr Maragh had misappropriated money and were not connected to the HMRC investigation. As at the extraction date (30 April 2015), a further cash shortage of ?42,792.49 existed on the firm's client bank account.

      13. On 12 May 2015, the firm received ?17,000 from Mr Maragh towards replacing this cash shortage. On 14 May 2015, the partners transferred ?25,792.49 from office bank account to client bank account replacing the cash shortage of ?42,792.49. Mr Maragh reimbursed the firm in the sum of ?27,542.49 on

      14 August 2015.

      Accounting procedures

      14. Between 1 January 2008 and the end of 2013, Mr Maragh under declared property values on 43 SDLT forms and transferred money for SDLT totalling ?324,509. During the period of at least 1 January 2008 to 24 April 2015, Mr Maragh made 64 payments totalling ?75,369.29 from client bank account for his own benefit and to various third parties from the firm's general client monies.

      15. The IO reviewed documents, which showed that Mr Maragh made 107 payments from the firm's client bank account of which 69 were made by CHAPS transfer, and 38 by client account cheque. Of the 69 CHAPS transfers, Mr Maragh was the "authorised signature" on 57 instructions forms before October 2013. After October 2013, Mrs Clifford was the authorised signature on 11 forms and Mrs Johal the authorised signature on one form.

      16. Mr Maragh was not a signatory to the firm's client bank account but had been able to authorise CHAPS transfers from client bank account without the need for approval or review from the firm's partners. Mr Maragh also had unrestricted access to the banking device, which generated authorisation codes for transactions. This continued up until spring 2013. Mr Maragh was able to complete and sign CHAPS transfer instructions, generate authorisation codes and fax instructions forms to the bank, which authorised payments from the firm's client bank account. The firm changed this procedure in 2013 so that only partners could sign fax payments. In relation to payments by cheque, the partners were the only individuals who had the authority to sign cheques.

      17. On 26 October 2015, Mr Maragh was convicted upon indictment of "Making false statements tending to prejudice her Majesty the Queen and the public revenue with intent to defraud her Majesty the Queen". He was sentenced on 13 November 2015 to 40 month's imprisonment.

      18. On 26 May 2016, a Confiscation Order was made against Mr Maragh and he was ordered to pay the sum of ?125,500. The value of the benefit was declared to be ?310,093.

      19. On 9 January 2017, an authorised officer considered the Report and the

      explanations received from the Firm and resolved that proceedings should be taken at the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal against Mrs Johal, Mr Goodall,

      Mrs Clifford and Mr Maragh.

      20. The decision to take proceedings at the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal against Mrs Johal, Mr Goodall and Mrs Clifford will be rescinded upon the basis of them entering into this Agreement.

      21. The decision to take proceedings at the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal against Mr Maragh will be rescinded and his conduct will be considered by the SRA internally, as it is the SRA?s case that he was primarily responsible for the matters set out at paragraphs 2 to 16 above.

      Admissions

      22. Bendika Johal, John Edward Samuel Goodall and Tara Nicolette Clifford make, and the SRA accepts, the following admissions:



      22.1 In allowing Anthony Maragh to authorise CHAPS transfers from client bank account between 1 January 2008 to 24 April 2015, without approval from the firm's partners, they:



      22.1.1 Allowed client money to be withdrawn from client bank account otherwise than in accordance with Rules 22 and 23 of the

      Solicitors Accounts Rules 1998 in the period up to October 2011 and Rule 20.1 SRA Accounts Rules in the period after October 2011;

      22.1.2 Allowed client money to be transferred and misused contrary to Rule 1(c) of the Solicitors Accounts Rules 1998 in the period up to October 2011 and Rule 1.2 (c) of the SRA Accounts

      Rules in the period after October 2011;

      22.1.3 Failed to establish and maintain proper accounting systems,

      and proper internal controls over those systems, to ensure

      compliance with the rules contrary to Rule 1(e) Solicitors

      Accounts Rules 1998 in the period up to October 2011 and Rule 1.2(e) of the SRA Accounts Rules in the period after October 2011; and

      22.1.4 Failed to protect client money and assets contrary to Principle 10 SRA Principles 2011.



      22.2 Between 1 January 2008 to 24 April 2015 they:



      22.2.1 Failed to make arrangements for the effective management of the firm as a whole, and in particular provide for the management of risk contrary to Rule 5.01(l) of the SCC 2007 in the period up to October 2011; and

      22.2.2 Failed to run their business or carry out their role in the business effectively and in accordance with proper governance and sound financial and risk management principles in breach of Principle 8 of SRA Principles and failed to achieve

      Outcome O(7.3) of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011 in the period

      after October 2011.



      22.3 Between 1 January 2008 to 24 April 2015, they failed to ensure compliance with the rules by everyone employed by the firm in breach of Rule 6 of the Solicitors Accounts Rules 1998 in the period up to October 2011 and Rule 6.1 SRA Accounts Rules in the period after October 2011.

      22.4 They failed to remedy breaches of the Accounts Rules promptly upon discovery in breach of Rule 7 SRA Accounts Rules 2011 in that they failed to replace client shortages in the sums of ?324,509 and ?32,576.80 promptly.



      Mitigation

      23. Mrs Johal, Mrs Clifford and Mr Goodall put forward the following by way of mitigation for the breaches admitted above.

      24. Mr Maragh was able to exploit the firm's accounting system by completing the fax instructions to the bank, as he would do for any other matter and provide an explanation for the payments such as "service charge", "broker fee" or "managing agent's fee". There was no reason for the partners to doubt the explanations for the payments and Mr Maragh also gave a verbal explanation for the payments. Given that a large volume of other transactions, which Mr Maragh requested, were valid, it was difficult to differentiate between valid requests and fraudulent transactions.

      25. The relative infrequency of instructions, which was approximately ten a year to "CW" made it difficult for the firm to identify a pattern, particularly as Mr Maragh would submit a number of CHAPS fax instructions weekly as part of his work. This meant that the CHAPS fax instructions to "CW" did not stand out to the firm. The fraudulent transactions were a fraction of the overall number of payments made in the conveyancing department and were not detected.

      26. Mr Maragh was a key member of staff. There was a level of trust and respect for Mr Maragh, as he was handling a heavy caseload and worked long hours for the firm. There was no reason to doubt Mr Maragh's integrity.

      27. Following the discovery of Mr Maragh's actions, the firm changed its accounts procedures and payment procedures. Additional checks are being made in conveyancing matters before authorisation for payments is given.

      28. The partners did not replace the shortages on client account promptly upon discovery as they were awaiting confirmation from HMRC as to whether funds would be recovered from Mr Maragh and there was also a dispute in respect of the figures provided by HMRC. The partners also notified their insurers of the shortages and were waiting to hear from them. The shortage of ?42,792.49, which existed as at 30 April 2015, was replaced on 12 and 14 May 2015.

      29. Clients have been reimbursed and did not complain to the firm. Some of the clients who were affected by the fraud continued to instruct the firm.

      Regulatory Outcome

      30. Mrs Johal, Mr Goodall and Mrs Clifford have accepted the above breaches and the admissions set out in paragraph 22 above, is proportionate in all the circumstances.

      31. Mrs Johal is rebuked and fined ?2,000 for the breaches identified in paragraph 22 above. Mr Goodall and Mrs Clifford are rebuked and each fined ?1000 for the breaches identified in paragraph 22 above.

      32. Mrs Johal, Mr Goodall and Mrs Clifford agree that this outcome will be published by the SRA and that it may also be disclosed to any person upon request or otherwise.

      33. Mrs Johal, Mr Goodall and Mrs Clifford agree to pay the costs of the investigation, including the SRA?s legal costs, in the sum of ?9,000, on a joint and several basis within 28 days of a statement of costs due being issued by the SRA.

      34. Mrs Johal, Mr Goodall and Mrs Clifford agree they will not act in any way that is inconsistent with this agreement by, for example, denying the misconduct admitted in paragraph 22 above.

      35. If Mrs Johal, Mr Goodall or Mrs Clifford act inconsistently in any way with this agreement, they accept that all issues may be referred back to the SRA for reconsideration, including that there be referral to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal or SRA internal sanction on the original facts and allegations and also on the basis that such failure to comply constitutes a breach of Principles 2, 6 and 7 SRA Principles 2011.

      The date of this agreement is 8 September 2017.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      08/09/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/546591.article?Decision=2017-09-08

      Outcome: Regulatory settlement agreement
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis

      Agreed outcome

      1.1. Mahdad Soltani, solicitor, agrees to the following outcome to the investigation of his conduct by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA)



      (a) he is rebuked

      (b) he is fined ?1000

      (c) to the publication of this agreement

      (d) he will pay the costs of the investigation of ?300



      Summary of Facts

      2.1. On 10 January 2017 Mr Soltani was convicted of driving with excess alcohol.

      2.2. The sentence was



      (a) disqualification from driving for 24 months

      (b) a fine of ?1,786



      2.3. Mr Soltani was also ordered to pay



      (a) costs of ?85

      (b) a victim surcharge of ?170



      Admissions

      3.1. Mr Soltani admits and the SRA accepts that by virtue of his conviction on 10 January 2017 for driving with excess alcohol he has failed to uphold the rule of law in breach of Principle 1 of the SRA Principles 2011.

      Why the agreed outcome is appropriate

      4.1. The SRA considers that the agreed outcome is appropriate because the conditions in rule 3.1 of the SRA Disciplinary Rules 2011 are met, in that



      (a) the conduct was deliberate or reckless;

      (b) the agreed outcome is a proportionate outcome in the public interest

      (c) the conduct was neither trivial nor justifiably inadvertent.



      4.2. In deciding that the agreed outcome is proportionate, the SRA has taken into account the admissions made by Mr Soltani and the following mitigation which he has put forward



      (a) he co-operated with the police. He provided a breath sample, accepted responsibility for the offence and pleaded guilty.

      (b) He has enrolled on a drink driving awareness course offered by the court.

      (c) he informed both the SRA and his firm promptly on the day he was charged.



      4.3. The amount of the fine takes into account all relevant circumstances, including those set out in Appendix 1 to the SRA Disciplinary Procedure Rules 2011.

      4.4. The SRA considers it appropriate that this agreement is published in the interests of transparency in the regulatory and disciplinary process.

      Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this Agreement

      5.1. Mr Soltani agrees that he will not act in any way which is inconsistent with this agreement such as, for example, by denying the admissions made in this agreement.

      5.2 If Mr Soltani acts in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement, the conduct which is subject to this agreement may be considered further by the SRA. That may result in a disciplinary outcome or a referral to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal on the original facts and allegations. Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement may also constitute a separate breach of Principles 2, 6 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2011.

      Costs

      6.1. Mr Soltani agrees to pay the costs of the SRA's investigation in the sum of ?300. Such costs are due within 28 days of a statement of costs due being issued by the SRA.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      06/09/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/085305.article?Decision=2018-01-12

      Outcome: Intervention
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis

      The Panel was satisfied that there was reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of Mr Edward Sibley in connection with his practice as a solicitor ( paragraph 1 (1) (a)(i) Schedule 1, Part 1, Solicitors Act 1974).

      The Panel was also satisfied that there had been a failure by Mr Edward Sibley to comply with rules made under Section 31 of the Solicitors Act (paragraph 1 (1)(c) Schedule1 Part 1 Solicitors Act 1974)??

      Intervening agents

      James Dunn of

      Devonshires,

      30 Finsbury Circus London EC2M7DT has been appointed as the intervening agent.



      For enquiries please

      call

      or email

      intervention-team@devonshires.co.uk.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      25/08/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/636519.article?Decision=2017-08-25

      Outcome: Control of non-qualified staff (section 43 order)
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis

      In the matter of Robert Lowe, person who is or was involved in legal practice but is not a solicitor.

      The Facts

      Mr Lowe is not a solicitor and is employed as a paralegal by Levins Solicitors at The Willows, 2 Rupert Road, Huyton, Liverpool, L36 9TF.

      Finding

      We find that Mr Lowe is or was involved in a legal practice (as defined by section 43 (1A) of the Solicitors Act 1974) but is not a solicitor and has occasioned or been a party to, with or without the connivance of a solicitor, an act or default in relation to a legal practice which involved conduct on his part of such a nature that in the opinion of the Society it would be undesirable for him to be involved in a legal practice in any of the ways set out in the order below.

      Order

      To make a section 43 order that with effect from the date of the letter or email notifying Mr Lowe of this decision:



      (i) no solicitor shall employ or remunerate him in connection with his/her practice as a solicitor;

      (ii) no employee of a solicitor shall employ or remunerate him in connection with the solicitor's practice;

      (iii) no recognised body shall employ or remunerate him;

      (iv) no manager or employee of a recognised body shall employ or remunerate him in connection with the business of that body;

      (v) no recognised body or manager or employee of such a body shall permit him to be a manager of the body; and

      (vi) no recognised body or manager or employee of such a body shall permit him to have an interest in the body



      except in accordance with a Society permission.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      25/08/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/166864.article?Decision=2017-12-06

      Outcome: Regulatory settlement agreement
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      Mr Hanrahan's practising certificate for the 2016/2017 is subject to the following conditions:



      Mr Hanrahan may practise only in employment approved by the SRA.

      Mr Hanrahan's work must be supervised by a named partner in the firm.

      Mr Hanrahan must not give undertakings.

      Mr Hanrahan must inform any actual or prospective employer of these conditions.





      Reasons/basisThe above conditions are considered to be necessary in the public interest and reasonable and proportionate having regard to the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 and the regulatory objectives and principles governing regulatory activities as contained in section 28 of the Legal Services Act 2007.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      25/08/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/117054.article?Decision=2017-08-25

      Outcome: Rebuke
      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.
      Decision details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.
      Reasons/basis
      Agreed outcome

      1.1. Mr Andrew Reed, solicitor, agrees to the following outcome to the investigation of his conduct by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA)

      (a) he is rebuked.
      (b) he is fined ?2,000.
      (c) to the publication of this agreement.
      (d) he will pay the costs of the investigation of ?600.

      Summary of Facts

      2.1. On 10 October 2016, Mr Reed was convicted of driving with excess alcohol.

      2.2. The sentence was:

      (a) disqualification from driving for 30 months.
      (b) a fine of ?700.

      2.3. Mr Reed was also ordered to pay:

      (a) a victim surcharge of ?70.
      (b) costs of ?85.

      Admissions

      3.1. Mr Reed admits and the SRA accepts that by virtue of his conviction for driving with excess alcohol he has failed to uphold the rule of law in breach of Principle 1 of the SRA Principles 2011.
      Why the agreed outcome is appropriate

      4.1. The SRA considers that the agreed outcome is appropriate as the conditions in rule 3.1 of the SRA Disciplinary Rules 2011 are met, in that:

      (a) the conduct was deliberate or reckless.
      (b) that the agreed outcome is a proportionate outcome in the public interest.
      (c) that the conduct was neither trivial nor justifiably inadvertent.

      4.2. In deciding that the agreed outcome is proportionate, the SRA has taken into account the admissions made by Mr Reed and the following mitigation which he has put forward:

      (a) he is remorseful about his actions which led to the conviction.
      (b) he paid the fine, victim surcharge and costs promptly.
      (c) he has cooperated fully with the SRA, and
      (d) he has a clear regulatory history.

      4.3. The amount of the fine takes into account all relevant circumstances, including those set out in Appendix 1 to the SRA Disciplinary Procedure Rules 2011.

      4.4. The SRA considers it appropriate that this agreement is published in the interests of transparency in the regulatory and disciplinary process.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      25/08/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/117054.article?Decision=2017-08-25

      Outcome: Rebuke
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis

      Agreed outcome

      1.1. Mr Andrew Reed, solicitor, agrees to the following outcome to the investigation of his conduct by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA)



      (a) he is rebuked.

      (b) he is fined ?2,000.

      (c) to the publication of this agreement.

      (d) he will pay the costs of the investigation of ?600.



      Summary of Facts

      2.1. On 10 October 2016, Mr Reed was convicted of driving with excess alcohol.

      2.2. The sentence was:



      (a) disqualification from driving for 30 months.

      (b) a fine of ?700.



      2.3. Mr Reed was also ordered to pay:



      (a) a victim surcharge of ?70.

      (b) costs of ?85.



      Admissions

      3.1. Mr Reed admits and the SRA accepts that by virtue of his conviction for driving with excess alcohol he has failed to uphold the rule of law in breach of Principle 1 of the SRA Principles 2011.

      Why the agreed outcome is appropriate

      4.1. The SRA considers that the agreed outcome is appropriate as the conditions in rule 3.1 of the SRA Disciplinary Rules 2011 are met, in that:



      (a) the conduct was deliberate or reckless.

      (b) that the agreed outcome is a proportionate outcome in the public interest.

      (c) that the conduct was neither trivial nor justifiably inadvertent.



      4.2. In deciding that the agreed outcome is proportionate, the SRA has taken into account the admissions made by Mr Reed and the following mitigation which he has put forward:



      (a) he is remorseful about his actions which led to the conviction.

      (b) he paid the fine, victim surcharge and costs promptly.

      (c) he has cooperated fully with the SRA, and

      (d) he has a clear regulatory history.



      4.3. The amount of the fine takes into account all relevant circumstances, including those set out in Appendix 1 to the SRA Disciplinary Procedure Rules 2011.

      4.4. The SRA considers it appropriate that this agreement is published in the interests of transparency in the regulatory and disciplinary process.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      24/08/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/123001.article?Decision=2018-10-08

      Outcome: Termination of suspension of PC/registration
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      The suspension of Mr Patrick Gerald Kelly's practising certificate for 2016/2017 is terminated subject to the following conditions:



      Mr Kelly is not a manager or owner of an authorised body or authorised non-SRA firm.



      In this condition the definitions are as defined in the SRA Handbook Glossary 2012.

      Mr Kelly was adjudged bankrupt at Bradford County Court on 1 August 2017. His 2016/2017 practising certificate was automatically suspended as a result.



      Reasons/basisThe above condition is considered to be necessary in the public interest and reasonable and proportionate having regard to the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 and the regulatory objectives and principles governing regulatory activities as contained in section 28 of the Legal Services Act 2007.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      22/08/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/134695.article?Decision=2017-08-22

      Outcome: Regulatory settlement agreement
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis

      Agreed outcome and undertaking

      1.1. Mr Martyn Evans (Mr Evans) is a consultant solicitor at Brains Solicitors of St Austell, Cornwall.

      1.2. Mr Evans agrees to the following outcome to the investigation into his conduct by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA):



      (a) he is rebuked

      (b) this Agreement is published

      (c) he pays the costs of the investigation of ?300



      1.3. Mr Evans affirms the voluntary undertaking previously given to the SRA not to act in the capacity of an Insolvency Practitioner again.

      Summary of Facts

      2.1. On 31 October 2015 Mr Evans' licence to act as an insolvency practitioner lapsed because the SRA stopped regulating solicitor insolvency practitioners. Mr Evans did not seek alternative authorisation. He retired as an Insolvency Practitioner on 31 October 2015 and has not acted as an Insolvency Practitioner since that date. His 14 remaining insolvency appointments were transferred by consent to an alternative insolvency practitioner ("Alternative IP").

      2.2. On taking over the appointments the Alternative IP noticed that on 13 of the 14 appointments there were procedural deficiencies in the way those cases had been progressed by Mr Evans. These were:



      (a) Annual progress reports were not prepared, in breach of the statutory obligation to do so.

      (b) Final progress reports (where appropriate) were not prepared, in breach of the statutory obligation to do so.

      (c) A conduct report was not prepared, in breach of the statutory obligation to do so.



      2.3. A complaint about Mr Evans' conduct was raised by a third party acting on behalf of a purported creditor. This complaint related to one of the 14 appointments that had been transferred from Mr Evans to the Alternative IP. Mr Evans failed to adequately correspond with the representative of that creditor prior to his retirement on the 31 October 2015.

      Admissions

      3.1. Mr Evans admits and the SRA accepts that by failing to prepare reports in accordance with his statutory obligations he breached Principles 6 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2011 and failed to achieve Outcome 7.5 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011.

      Why the agreed outcome is appropriate

      4.1. The SRA considers that the agreed outcome is appropriate as the conditions in rule

      3.1 of the SRA Disciplinary Rules 2011 are met, in that:



      (a) the conduct related to a failure to comply with professional obligations;

      (b) that the agreed outcome is a proportionate outcome in the public interest; and

      (c) that the conduct was neither trivial nor justifiably inadvertent.



      4.2. In deciding that the agreed outcome is proportionate, the SRA has taken into account the admissions made by Mr Evans and the following mitigation which he has put forward:



      (a) Mr Evans has a clear regulatory history, having practised as a solicitor for over 30 years.

      (b) The above conduct related solely to Mr Evans? practice as an insolvency practitioner, which Mr Evans performed between 2009 and 2015. Having regard to the fact that Mr Evans retired as an Insolvency Practitioner on 31 October 2015 and having regard to the affirmation of the voluntary undertaking at paragraph 1.3 above, there is no future risk of any repetition or recurrence of the conduct described above.

      (c) There is no indication of any loss caused to the general public or the body of creditors involved in the 13 appointments referred to above.

      (d) Mr Evans suffered a close family bereavement in August 2015, which impacted on the conduct described above.

      (e) Mr Evans has apologised for his conduct and cooperated fully with the SRA.



      4.3. The SRA considers it appropriate that this Agreement is published in the interests of transparency in the regulatory and disciplinary process.

      Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this Agreement

      5.1. Mr Evans agrees that he will not act in any way which is inconsistent with this Agreement such as, for example, by denying the admission made in this Agreement or acting in breach of the undertaking affirmed in paragraph 1.3.

      5.2. If Mr Evans acts in a way which is inconsistent with this Agreement, including acting in breach of the undertaking affirmed in paragraph 1.3 above, the conduct which is subject to this Agreement may be subject to further consideration by the SRA. That may result in a disciplinary sanction or a referral to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal on the original facts and allegations. Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this Agreement may also constitute a separate breach of Principles 2, 6 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2011.

      Costs

      6.1. Mr Evans agrees to pay the costs of the SRA's investigation in the sum of ?300 inclusive of VAT and disbursements. Such costs are due within 28 days of a statement of costs due being issued by the SRA.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      22/08/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/283382.article?Decision=2017-08-22

      Outcome: Intervention
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis

      The Panel was satisfied that grounds for intervention existed under Paragraph 1(1)(a) of Schedule 1 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended) as there was reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of Alvin Just in connection with his practice as a solicitor.

      The Panel was satisfied that grounds for intervention existed under Paragraph 1(1)(c) of Schedule 1 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended) as Alvin Just had failed to comply with the rules made by virtue of Sections 31 and 32 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended).

      The Panel was satisfied that grounds for intervention existed under Paragraph 1(1)(m) of Schedule 1 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended) namely that it was necessary to intervene to protect the interests of Alvin Just's clients (or former clients) and the interests of beneficiaries of any trust of which he is or was a trustee.

      Other information

      Mr Just's practising certificate has been suspended with immediate effect.

      Mr Just practised in partnership with Devon Anthony Brown under the name of Just & Brown. Please note that the intervention only relates to Mr Just and not Devon Anthony Brown.

      Intervening agents

      James Dunn of

      Devonshires Solicitors LLP,

      30 Finsbury Circus, London, EC2M 7DT has been appointed as the intervening agent.



      For enquiries please

      call

      0207 065 1830 or email

      intervention.team@devonshires.co.uk.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      22/08/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/371370.article?Decision=2017-08-22

      Outcome: Rebuke
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details

      A written Rebuke was issued against Mr Subramani. He was directed to pay costs of ?1,350

      Reasons/basisKumar Subramani is a solicitor and director of KTS Legal Limited, whose Head Office is at Nicholas House,12 River Front, Enfield, Middlesex, EN1 3TF. He was found to have made payments from his client account where there was no underlying legal transaction and in doing so provided banking facilities, in breach of rule 14.5 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011. A written rebuke was issued against Mr Subramani. He was directed to pay costs of ?1350 and appeal costs of ?250

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      17/08/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/118966.article?Decision=2016-08-16

      Outcome: Referral to Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis

      Outcome of SDT Hearing

      This notification relates to a Decision to prosecute before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. This is an independent Tribunal which reaches its own decision after considering all the evidence, including any evidence put forward by the Respondent. The Tribunal had certified that there was a case to answer.

      On 26 July 2018, the Tribunal approved an Agreed Outcome.

      Mr.Schwartz was Struck Off the Roll.

      The SDT judgment will be available at www.solicitorstribunal.org.uk.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      16/08/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/277677.article?Decision=2017-08-14

      Outcome: Intervention
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details

      Decision to intervene into practice.

      Reasons/basis

      The Adjudication Panel is satisfied that grounds for intervention existed under Paragraph 1(1)(a) of Schedule 1 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended) that there is reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of Joanne Power in connection with her practice as a solicitor.

      The Adjudication Panel is satisfied that grounds for intervention existed under Paragraph 1(1)(c) of Schedule 1 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended) that Joanne Power has failed to comply with the SRA Principles 2011 and the SRA Accounts Rules 2011 which are rules made under section 31 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended).

      Intervening agents

      Nigel Coates of

      Russell-Cooke LLP,

      2 Putney Hill, London, SW15 6AB has been appointed as the intervening agent.



      For enquiries please

      call

      or email

      FIID@russell-cooke.co.uk.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      16/08/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/599335.article?Decision=2017-08-16

      Outcome: Intervention
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details

      The Adjudication Panel decided to intervene into the practice of Diamonds Legal LLP.

      Reasons/basis



      The Adjudication Panel is satisfied in accordance with paragraph 32(1)(a) of Schedule 2 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 that Joanne Power, as a manager of Diamonds Legal LLP has failed to comply with the SRA Principles 2011 and the SRA Accounts Rules 2011 which are rules applicable to it by virtue of section 9 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (as amended);

      The Adjudication Panel is satisfied in accordance with paragraph 32(1)(d) that there is reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of Joanne Power, a manager of Diamonds Legal LLP, in connection with the firm's business.



      Intervening agents

      Nigel Coates of

      Russell-Cooke LLP,

      2 Putney Hill, London, SW15 6AB has been appointed as the intervening agent.



      For enquiries please

      call

      0208 394 6400 or email

      FIID@russell-cooke.co.uk.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      11/08/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/106653.article?Decision=2017-08-11

      Outcome: Regulatory settlement agreement
      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis
      Outcome and undertakings
      1.1. Geoffrey Allen Parry ("Mr Parry"), whose date of birth is 1 April 1950, is a solicitor. Mr Parry agrees to the following outcome to the current investigation of his conduct by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA):

      (a) he is rebuked.
      (b) he is fined ?500.
      (c) the publication of this agreement and the disclosure of this agreement to any person upon reasonable request.
      (d) he will pay an amount towards the costs of the investigation of ?600.
      1.2. Mr Parry provides the following undertaking to the SRA:

      (a) to ensure that his status as a non-practising solicitor is made clear to all parties he deals with in all relevant circumstances, unless and until he obtains a practising certificate in the future (or successfully applies for removal from the Roll of Solicitors).
      Further agreements
      2.1. Mr Parry agrees that he will not act in any way inconsistent with this Agreement such as, for example, denying the misconduct admitted at paragraph 4 below.

      2.2. If Mr Parry acts in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement, or in breach of the undertaking referred to in paragraph 1.2 above, his conduct may be subject to further consideration by the SRA. That may result in a disciplinary sanction or a referral to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, both on the original facts and allegations and also on the basis that failing to comply with this Agreement may itself constitute a breach of Principles 2, 6 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2011.

      Summary of Facts
      3.1. Mr Parry is 67 years old. He was admitted to the Roll of Solicitors on 1 December 1975 but has not held a Practising Certificate since his 2012/2013 PC was terminated on 4 February 2014.

      3.2. The company Geoff Parry Limited ("GPL") was incorporated on 11 April 2013, being approximately three months prior to end of Mr Parry's last post as an employed Consultant (as recorded on SRA records). Mr Parry was the sole shareholder and one of two directors (with his wife) of GPL.

      3.3. At no time was GPL authorised by the SRA (or any other legal regulator), although the Companies House records state the nature of it's business as being that of Solicitors. GPL was dissolved via compulsory strike off on 4 August 2015.

      3.4. In January 2015 Mr Parry filed a Notice of Change of Legal Representative in his own name in Telford County Court, on behalf of Defendants (the J family, whom Mr Parry says he has known for a long time). Mr Parry also attended Court in relation to this matter and, in February 2015, wrote to the Claimants on behalf of the J family (on GPL headed paper) and also prepared and filed an Amended Defence on behalf of the defendant family.

      3.5. In and around February 2015, Mr Parry engaged in correspondence with a firm of solicitors on behalf of a Mr S, in relation to a proposed private mortgage between Mr S and the other firm's client. Over the course of several emails and letters Mr Parry did not properly clarify his status as a non-practising solicitor with the third party solicitor. Mr Parry's involvement did not continue as the other firm ceased corresponding with him.

      3.6. In June 2015, Mr Parry wrote a letter to British Telecom on behalf of Ms G, using GPL headed note-paper. The letter was signed "G.A. Parry, Solicitor" (with no qualification in relation to not being practising).

      3.7. In and around June 2015 Mr Parry provided what he has described as "legal advisory work" to a company engaged in purchasing the assets of another company engaged in a property letting business. His details (as GPL) were included in the contractual documentation. In July 2016 Mr Parry engaged in correspondence, on behalf of the same company, with a third party landlord who had been affected by the purchase. In the course of this correspondence Mr Parry signed at least one email as "Geoffrey Parry. LLB (Hons). Solicitor" (with no further qualification).

      3.8. In and around April 2016 he engaged in email correspondence with a beneficiary of an estate (Ms B), in relation to estates on which Mr Parry had previously formally acted as a solicitor and in relation to which he was still assisting with matters. In the correspondence with the beneficiary Mr Parry did not clearly clarify his status and current role.

      3.9. The SRA received reports/complaints relating to Mr Parry's involvement in the matters summarised at paragraphs 3.4 to 3.8 from various third parties (not from those Mr Parry was assisting / representing).

      3.10. Before these matters, Mr Parry had no significant adverse disciplinary findings against him as a solicitor.

      3.11. A bankruptcy order was made against Mr Parry on 26 September 2016.

      Findings
      4.1. Mr Parry makes the following admissions which the SRA accepts:

      (a) That between January and February 2015 he undertook reserved legal activities by conducting litigation on behalf of the J family, in breach of Section 14 of the Legal Services Act 2007 and Principles 6 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2011 ("the Principles").
      (b) That between January 2015 and July 2016 he failed to adequately clarify his status as a non-practising solicitor to third parties on several occasions, in breach of Principles 6 and 7 of the Principles and Outcome 8.4 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011;
      (c) That between January 2015 and July 2016 he held himself out explicitly or implicitly as a solicitor practising in legal practice when he had no practising certificate, in breach of Rule 9 of the SRA Practice Framework Rules 2011 and Principles 6 and 7 of the Principles.
      Mitigation
      5.1. Mr Parry has advanced the following mitigation in respect of the breaches admitted above, which has been taken into account by but is not endorsed by the SRA. Mr Parry states that:

      (a) He is a pensioner who augments his pension with a 3 day a week appointment assisting in the sports department of a local school;
      (b) GPL had been formed when he had been working as a consultant, as a vehicle intended to minimise tax. Although correspondence was sent out on GPL letterheads it never "traded", in that Mr Parry states that no bills or accounts were prepared or advertising undertaken and the company was wound up in 2015.
      (c) Since retiring from his position as a Consultant Solicitor he continued to be contacted by friends and acquaintances on legal issues. In relation to matters set out at paragraphs 3.4 to 3.6 and 3.8 he was assisting and undertaking correspondence for no charge and those he was assisting knew that he had officially retired as a solicitor.
      (d) He had not intended to mislead or deceive any third parties as to his status (but accepts in hindsight that his correspondence was not sufficiently clear).
      (e) In relation to matters referred to in paragraph 3.4, he had believed at the time that he could act as he did for the J family as a "Litigation Friend", on a short term basis until they arranged other representation.
      (f) The contract referred to in paragraph 3.7 was drafted for a business consultant who was acting for the buyer, but he (Mr Parry) had no direct involvement in the transaction itself.
      Consideration of Regulatory Outcome
      6.1. The SRA considers that the Regulatory Outcome set out at paragraph 1 is appropriate as the conditions in rule 3.1 of the SRA Disciplinary Rules 2011 are met, in that:

      (a) the conduct related to a failure to ascertain, recognise or comply with the regulated person's professional or regulatory obligations;
      (b) the conduct persisted after the regulated person should have realised that it was improper;
      (c) the conduct misled or had the potential to mislead clients, the court or other persons, whether or not that was appreciated by the regulated person;
      (d) the agreed outcome is a proportionate outcome in the public interest;
      (e) the conduct was neither trivial nor justifiably inadvertent.
      6.2. In deciding that the agreed outcome is proportionate, the SRA has taken into account the admissions made by Mr Parry, the factual background (including Mr Parry's bankruptcy) and information provided by Mr Parry in mitigation.

      6.3. The SRA considers it appropriate that this agreement is published in the interests of transparency in the regulatory and disciplinary process.

      Costs
      7.1. Geoffrey Allen Parry agrees to pay the costs of the SRA's investigation in the sum of ?600.

      The date of this Agreement is 11 August 2017.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      11/08/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/106653.article?Decision=2017-08-11

      Outcome: Regulatory settlement agreement
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis

      Outcome and undertakings

      1.1. Geoffrey Allen Parry ("Mr Parry"), whose date of birth is 1 April 1950, is a solicitor. Mr Parry agrees to the following outcome to the current investigation of his conduct by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA):



      (a) he is rebuked.

      (b) he is fined ?500.

      (c) the publication of this agreement and the disclosure of this agreement to any person upon reasonable request.

      (d) he will pay an amount towards the costs of the investigation of ?600.



      1.2. Mr Parry provides the following undertaking to the SRA:



      (a) to ensure that his status as a non-practising solicitor is made clear to all parties he deals with in all relevant circumstances, unless and until he obtains a practising certificate in the future (or successfully applies for removal from the Roll of Solicitors).



      Further agreements

      2.1. Mr Parry agrees that he will not act in any way inconsistent with this Agreement such as, for example, denying the misconduct admitted at paragraph 4 below.

      2.2. If Mr Parry acts in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement, or in breach of the undertaking referred to in paragraph 1.2 above, his conduct may be subject to further

      consideration by the SRA. That may result in a disciplinary sanction or a referral to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, both on the original facts and allegations and also on the basis that failing to comply with this Agreement may itself constitute a breach of Principles 2, 6 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2011.

      Summary of Facts

      3.1. Mr Parry is 67 years old. He was admitted to the Roll of Solicitors on 1 December 1975 but has not held a Practising Certificate since his 2012/2013 PC was terminated on 4 February 2014.

      3.2. The company Geoff Parry Limited ("GPL") was incorporated on 11 April 2013, being approximately three months prior to end of Mr Parry's last post as an employed Consultant (as recorded on SRA records). Mr Parry was the sole shareholder and one of two directors (with his wife) of GPL.

      3.3. At no time was GPL authorised by the SRA (or any other legal regulator), although the Companies House records state the nature of it's business as being that of Solicitors. GPL was dissolved via compulsory strike off on 4 August 2015.

      3.4. In January 2015 Mr Parry filed a Notice of Change of Legal Representative in his own name in Telford County Court, on behalf of Defendants (the J family, whom Mr Parry says he has known for a long time). Mr Parry also attended Court in relation to this matter and, in February 2015, wrote to the Claimants on behalf of the J family (on GPL headed paper) and also prepared and filed an Amended Defence on behalf of the defendant family.

      3.5. In and around February 2015, Mr Parry engaged in correspondence with a firm of solicitors on behalf of a Mr S, in relation to a proposed private mortgage between Mr S and the other firm's client. Over the course of several emails and letters Mr Parry did not properly clarify his status as a non-practising solicitor with the third party solicitor. Mr Parry's involvement did not continue as the other firm ceased corresponding with him.

      3.6. In June 2015, Mr Parry wrote a letter to British Telecom on behalf of Ms G, using GPL headed note-paper. The letter was signed "G.A. Parry, Solicitor" (with no qualification in relation to not being practising).

      3.7. In and around June 2015 Mr Parry provided what he has described as "legal advisory work" to a company engaged in purchasing the assets of another company engaged in a property letting business. His details (as GPL) were included in the contractual documentation. In July 2016 Mr Parry engaged in correspondence, on behalf of the same company, with a third party landlord who had been affected by the purchase. In the course of this correspondence Mr Parry signed at least one email as "Geoffrey Parry. LLB (Hons). Solicitor" (with no further qualification).

      3.8. In and around April 2016 he engaged in email correspondence with a beneficiary of an estate (Ms B), in relation to estates on which Mr Parry had previously formally acted as a solicitor and in relation to which he was still assisting with matters. In the correspondence with the beneficiary Mr Parry did not clearly clarify his status and current role.

      3.9. The SRA received reports/complaints relating to Mr Parry's involvement in the matters summarised at paragraphs 3.4 to 3.8 from various third parties (not from those Mr Parry was assisting / representing).

      3.10. Before these matters, Mr Parry had no significant adverse disciplinary findings against him as a solicitor.

      3.11. A bankruptcy order was made against Mr Parry on 26 September 2016.

      Findings

      4.1. Mr Parry makes the following admissions which the SRA accepts:



      (a) That between January and February 2015 he undertook reserved legal activities by conducting litigation on behalf of the J family, in breach of Section 14 of the Legal Services Act 2007 and Principles 6 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2011 ("the Principles").

      (b) That between January 2015 and July 2016 he failed to adequately clarify his status as a non-practising solicitor to third parties on several occasions, in breach of Principles 6 and 7 of the Principles and Outcome 8.4 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011;

      (c) That between January 2015 and July 2016 he held himself out explicitly or implicitly as a solicitor practising in legal practice when he had no practising certificate, in breach of Rule 9 of the SRA Practice Framework Rules 2011 and Principles 6 and 7 of the Principles.



      Mitigation

      5.1. Mr Parry has advanced the following mitigation in respect of the breaches admitted above, which has been taken into account by but is not endorsed by the SRA. Mr Parry states that:



      (a) He is a pensioner who augments his pension with a 3 day a week appointment assisting in the sports department of a local school;

      (b) GPL had been formed when he had been working as a consultant, as a vehicle intended to minimise tax. Although correspondence was sent out on GPL letterheads it never "traded", in that Mr Parry states that no bills or accounts were prepared or advertising undertaken and the company was wound up in 2015.

      (c) Since retiring from his position as a Consultant Solicitor he continued to be contacted by friends and acquaintances on legal issues. In relation to matters set out at paragraphs 3.4 to 3.6 and 3.8 he was assisting and undertaking correspondence for no charge and those he was assisting knew that he had officially retired as a solicitor.

      (d) He had not intended to mislead or deceive any third parties as to his status (but accepts in hindsight that his correspondence was not sufficiently clear).

      (e) In relation to matters referred to in paragraph 3.4, he had believed at the time that he could act as he did for the J family as a "Litigation Friend", on a short term basis until they arranged other representation.

      (f) The contract referred to in paragraph 3.7 was drafted for a business consultant who was acting for the buyer, but he (Mr Parry) had no direct involvement in the transaction itself.



      Consideration of Regulatory Outcome

      6.1. The SRA considers that the Regulatory Outcome set out at paragraph 1 is appropriate as the conditions in rule 3.1 of the SRA Disciplinary Rules 2011 are met, in that:



      (a) the conduct related to a failure to ascertain, recognise or comply with the regulated person's professional or regulatory obligations;

      (b) the conduct persisted after the regulated person should have realised that it was improper;

      (c) the conduct misled or had the potential to mislead clients, the court or other persons, whether or not that was appreciated by the regulated person;

      (d) the agreed outcome is a proportionate outcome in the public interest;

      (e) the conduct was neither trivial nor justifiably inadvertent.



      6.2. In deciding that the agreed outcome is proportionate, the SRA has taken into account the admissions made by Mr Parry, the factual background (including Mr Parry's bankruptcy) and information provided by Mr Parry in mitigation.

      6.3. The SRA considers it appropriate that this agreement is published in the interests of transparency in the regulatory and disciplinary process.

      Costs

      7.1. Geoffrey Allen Parry agrees to pay the costs of the SRA's investigation in the sum of ?600.

      The date of this Agreement is 11 August 2017.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      10/08/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/168794.article?Decision=2017-08-10

      Outcome: Regulatory settlement agreement
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis

      Agreed outcome

      1.1. Ms Sandra Campbell is the sole practitioner of Campbell & Co Solicitors (the Firm). Ms Campbell agrees to the following outcome to the investigation of her conduct by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA):



      (a) she is rebuked

      (b) to the publication of this agreement

      (c) she will pay the costs of the investigation of ?600.



      Summary of Facts

      2.1. Ms Campbell is the sole principal and Compliance Officer for Finance and Administration (COFA) for the Firm.

      2.2. The SRA commenced an inspection into the Firm following receipt of a qualified accountant's report. The investigation found that the books of account were not in compliance with the SRA Accounts Rules 2011 (the Accounts Rules).

      2.3. It was identified that:



      (a) Between January 2014 and April 2016 Ms Campbell made a number of incorrect payments and transfers from the Firm's client bank account. The amounts ranged from ?0.01 to ?2,419.40 and resulted in a client account shortage of ?7,104.32 on 30 April 2016.

      (b) On two occasions payments that were earmarked for costs were not transferred out of the client account within 14 days.

      (c) Ms Campbell used a suspense ledger that was overdrawn between 3 February 2015 and 9 June 2016.



      2.4. Ms Campbell submitted qualified accountants' reports to the SRA dated 14 August 2015 and 4 March 2016. Both of those reports noted that the firm had overdrawn client ledgers, albeit the individual instances identified had been remedied. However, both reports noted a client account shortage.

      2.5. The client account shortage of ?7,104.32 was rectified on 10 June 2016. The most recent accountant's report, dated 6 March 2017, notes that there are now adequate controls in place to ensure compliance with the Accounts Rules.

      Admissions

      3.1. Ms Campbell makes the following admissions which the SRA accepts:



      (a) That by making payments from her client account in respect of particular client matters when she did not hold enough money on behalf of each of those clients to make such payments, she breached:



      i. Principle 10 of the SRA Principles 2011 (the Principles)

      ii. Rules 20.1 and 20.6 of the Accounts Rules.



      (b) That by failing to transfer funds that were earmarked for costs out of client account within 14 days she breached Rule 17.3 of the Accounts Rules.

      (c) That by operating an overdrawn suspense ledger between 3 February 2015 and 9 June 2016 she breached Principle 10 of the Principles and Rule 29.25 of the Accounts Rules.

      (d) That by failing to report material breaches of the rules to the SRA as soon as reasonably practicable, she breached of Rule 8.5(e)(iii) of the SRA Authorisation Rules 2011.



      Why the agreed outcome is appropriate

      4.1. The SRA considers that the agreed outcome is appropriate as the conditions in rule 3.1 of the SRA Disciplinary Rules 2011 are met, in that:



      (a) the conduct caused or had the potential to cause loss or significant inconvenience to any other person and continued for an unreasonable period taking into account its seriousness.

      (b) that the agreed outcome is a proportionate outcome in the public interest.

      (c) that the conduct was neither trivial nor justifiably inadvertent.



      4.2. In deciding that the agreed outcome is proportionate, the SRA has taken into account the admissions made by Ms Campbell and the following mitigation which she has put forward:



      (a) Between 2013 and 2016 she experienced the loss of four family members and her mother was diagnosed with cancer. During this time she provided considerable support to her family which meant that she was unable to devote the time that she would otherwise have done to the accounting requirements of the firm.

      (b) She has corrected the issues identified and implemented procedures to ensure they do not reoccur.



      4.3. The SRA considers it appropriate that this agreement is published in the interests of transparency in the regulatory and disciplinary process.

      Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this Agreement

      5.1. Ms Campbell agrees that she will not act in any way which is inconsistent with this agreement such as, for example, by denying the admissions made in this agreement.

      5.2. If Ms Campbell acts in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement, the conduct which is subject to this agreement may be subject to further consideration by the SRA. That may result in a disciplinary sanction or a referral to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal on the original facts and allegations. Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement may also constitute a separate breach of Principles 2, 6 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2011.

      Costs

      6.1. Ms Campbell agrees to pay the costs of the SRA's investigation in the sum of ?600. Such costs are due within 28 days of a statement of costs due being issued by the SRA.

      The date of this agreement is 10 August 2017.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      07/08/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/152809.article?Decision=2018-10-04

      Outcome: Termination of suspension of PC/registration
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      The suspension of Mr Andrew Eric Wylde's practising certificate for 2016/2017 is terminated subject to the following conditions:



      Mr Wylde may not act as a manager or owner of any authorised body or authorised non-SRA firm.

      Mr Wylde can only authorise transfers to and from a firm's client account while under the supervision of a compliance officer or manager of the firm.



      In these conditions the definitions are as defined in the SRA Handbook Glossary 2012.



      Reasons/basis

      Mr Wylde was adjudged bankrupt at High Court on 31 July 2017. His 2016/2017 practising certificate was automatically suspended as a result.

      The above conditions are considered to be necessary in the public interest and reasonable and proportionate having regard to the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 and the regulatory objectives and principles governing regulatory activities as contained in section 28 of the Legal Services Act 2007.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      02/08/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/348347.article?Decision=2017-08-02

      Outcome: Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal order
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis



      Outcome of SDT Hearing



      This notification relates to a Decision to prosecute before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. This is an independent Tribunal which reaches its own decision after considering all the evidence, including any evidence put forward by the Respondent. The Tribunal had certified that there was a case to answer.

      The matter was heard on 1 and 2 August 2017.

      The Tribunal ordered that Mr Mahmood pay a fine of ?25,000.

      It also ordered he be suspended from practice as a solicitor for the period of 12 months from 2 August 2017, that period of suspension to be suspended for 12 months from the same date.

      The SDT judgment will be available at www.solicitorstribunal.org.uk

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      31/07/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/027490.article?Decision=2017-07-31

      Outcome: Referral to Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis

      Outcome of SDT Hearing

      This notification relates to a Decision to prosecute before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. This is an independent Tribunal which reaches its own decision after considering all the evidence, including any evidence put forward by the Respondent. The Tribunal had certified that there was a case to answer.

      The matter was heard on 2 August 2018.

      Mr Loy was fined ?2,000.

      The SDT judgment will be available at www.solicitorstribunal.org.uk.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      28/07/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/153697.article?Decision=2017-07-28

      Outcome: Intervention
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis

      The Panel was satisfied that grounds for intervention existed under Paragraph 1(1)(g) of Schedule 1 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended) as Mr Vernon James Burke's name had been struck off the Roll of Solicitors.

      The Panel was satisfied that grounds for intervention existed under Paragraph 1(1)(m) of Schedule 1 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended) namely that it was necessary to intervene to protect the interests of Mr Burke's clients (or former clients) or the beneficiaries of any trust of which he is or was a trustee.

      Intervening agents

      Nigel Coates of

      Russell-Cooke LLP,

      2 Putney Hill, London, SW15 6AB has been appointed as the intervening agent.



      For enquiries please

      call

      020 8394 6400 or email

      FIID@russell-cooke.co.uk.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      27/07/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/101264.article?Decision=2017-07-27

      Outcome: Regulatory settlement agreement
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      Regulatory Settlement Agreement



      Agreed outcome

      1.1 Michael Hugh Vaughan a director of Kingswell Berney Ltd, Hampshire, agrees to the following outcome to the investigation of his conduct by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA):

      a. he is rebuked.b. to the publication of this agreement.c. he will pay the costs of the investigation of ?300.







      ?







      ?

      Summary of Facts



      2.1 The SRA identified that the books of account at Kingswell Berney Ltd were not in compliance with the SRA Accounts Rules 2011.

      2.2 The client account reconciliation at 31 August 2015 noted:



      a. Client ledger account debit balances totalling ?166,837.70;b. Office balances in credit; andc. Outstanding postings totalling ?5,450.30.







      ?

      2.3 The client ledger account debit balances had been caused by payments from the firm's client account in excess of funds held for individual clients.

      2.4 The office credit balances arose because:



      a. costs had been transferred from client to office account without posting the bill of costs on the office side of the client ledger account;b. funds had been transferred from client to office account in excess of the bill of costs; andfunds had been transferred twice.







      ?

      2.5 The result of the issues identified above created a cash shortage of ?17,177.00. This shortage was replaced by Mr Vaughan and his co-director Mr Whitby-Smith by 27 October 2015. The SRA is satisfied that the accounts have now been rectified.



      Admissions



      3.1 Mr Vaughan makes the following admissions which the SRA accepts, by failing to ensure compliance with the SRA Accounts Rules 2011 he has breached Rule 6 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011:



      a. By making payments from the firm's client account in excess of funds held for individual clients and by making unallocated withdrawals from client account he has breached Rule 20 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011;b. By failing to keep proper accounting records he has breached Rule 29.1 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011; andc. He failed to protect client money in breach of Principle 10 of the SRA Principles 2011.







      ?



      Why the agreed outcome is appropriate



      4.1 The SRA considers that the agreed outcome is appropriate as the conditions in rule 3.1 of the SRA Disciplinary Rules 2011 are met, in that:

      a. the conduct related to a failure to comply with Mr Vaughan regulatory obligations;b. that the agreed outcome is a proportionate outcome in the public interest;c. that the conduct was neither trivial nor justifiably inadvertent.



      ?

      4.2 In deciding that the agreed outcome is proportionate, the SRA has taken into account the admissions made by Mr Vaughan and the following mitigation which he has put forward:

      a. Mr Vaughan cooperated fully throughout the SRA investigation and apologises for the breaches.b. There is no adverse regulatory history recorded against him. c. Mr Vaughan and Mr Whitby-Smith have made changes to the firm's accounting procedures to make sure that such breaches are unlikely to be repeated.



      ?

      4.3 The SRA considers it appropriate that this agreement is published in the interests of transparency in the regulatory and disciplinary process.



      Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this Agreement



      a. Mr Vaughan agrees that he will not act in any way which is inconsistent with this agreement such as, for example, by denying the admissions made in this agreement.

      b. If Mr Vaughan acts in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement, the conduct which is subject to this agreement may be subject to further consideration by the SRA. That may result in a disciplinary sanction or a referral to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal on the original facts and allegations. Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement may also constitute a separate breach of Principles 2, 6 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2011.



      Costs



      6.1 Mr Vaughan agrees to pay the costs of the SRA's investigation in the sum of ?300. Such costs are due within 28 days of a statement of costs due being issued by the SRA.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      27/07/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/081664.article?Decision=2017-07-27

      Outcome: Rebuke
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      Mr Simon Keith Proddow, a solicitor and director of Proddow Mackay (Conveyancing) Limited (the Firm) of Maidenhead, agrees to the following outcome to the investigation of his conduct by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA):



      he is rebuked.

      he is fined ?2000.

      to the publication of this agreement.

      he will pay the costs of the investigation of ?600.





      Reasons/basis

      Background



      1. In 2009 a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) for Mr M was registered. It appointed his son, Mr DM, as his attorney.

      2. In May 2012 the Firm accepted instruction from a long standing client, Ms D, to act for Mr M in the sale of Property A and the purchase of Property B. Mr Proddow had conduct of the matter. Ms D was Mr M's daughter.

      3. At no point during the retainer did Mr Proddow or a representative of the Firm meet with Mr M or speak with him on the telephone.

      4. Mr Proddow took instructions in the matter from Ms D. Ms D told Mr Proddow that Mr M was over 70 years old and would not be able to attend the Firm's office.

      5. Mr Proddow did not:



      a. send any client care information to Mr M.

      b. confirm with Mr M that he wished to sell his property and purchase another.

      c. ensure that, in relation to the transactions, Mr M was happy for Mr Proddow to take instructions from Ms D.



      6. Mr Proddow sent letters addressed to Mr M at Property A, thanking him for his instructions. Mr Proddow enclosed the Fittings and Contents Form and Property Information Form for Mr M to complete. Those forms were returned to Mr Proddow with the relevant details completed and signed by Mr M.

      7. On 2 August 2012 the sale of Property A and the purchase of Property B completed. The balance held by the Firm from the sale of Property A was ?96,638.

      8. On 3 August 2012 Mr Proddow transferred the ?96,638 to Ms D's personal bank account. The transfer was made on the instruction of Ms D and her assurance that Mr M had agreed to it.

      9. Property A had been held by Mr M in his sole name. Property B was purchased using funds obtained from the sale of Property A. Property B was purchased and registered in the names of Mr M, Ms D and Ms S (Mr M's other daughter). The purchase of Property B in this way was made on the instruction of Ms D and her assurance that Mr M had agreed to it.

      10. In 2015 Mr Proddow received instructions for the sale of Property B. These instructions were received from Ms D. The sale of Property B did not proceed because Mr Proddow became aware of the LPA appointing Mr DM as Mr M's attorney.

      11. Upon the discovery of the LPA Mr Proddow stopped acting in relation to the matter and notified the Firm's insurer.

      12. The matter has since been subject to court proceedings which were resolved. Mr M died before the matter was settled.



      Admissions

      Mr Proddow makes the following admissions which the SRA accepts:



      1. that because he took instructions from Ms D in relation to the sale of Property A and the purchase of Property B without confirming that:



      a. Mr M wanted to sell his property and purchase another; or

      b. that Mr M wanted Mr Proddow to take instructions from Ms D on his behalf;





      he breached Principle 4 of the SRA Principles 2011 (the Principles) and failed to achieve Outcome 1.2 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011 (the Code).



      2. that by:



      a. effecting the sale of Property A;

      b. effecting the purchase of Property B using Mr M's monies but in the name of Mr M, Ms D and Ms S; and

      c. transferring ?96,638 to Ms D from the proceeds of sale from Property A;





      he breached Principles 4 and 10 of the Principles.

      Why the agreed outcome is appropriate



      1. The SRA considers that the agreed outcome at paragraph 1 is appropriate as the conditions in rule 3.1 of the SRA Disciplinary Rules 2011 are met, in that:



      a. the conduct was reckless and caused loss to Mr M.

      b. the agreed outcome is a proportionate outcome in the public interest.

      c. the conduct was neither trivial nor justifiably inadvertent.



      2. In deciding that the agreed outcome is proportionate, the SRA has taken into account the admissions made by Mr Proddow and the following mitigation which he has put forward:



      a. Mr Proddow had been acting for Ms D in relation to conveyancing for the previous ten years; and

      b. Mr Proddow believed that Ms D and Ms S were acting in Mr M's best interests.



      3. The amount of the fine takes into account all relevant circumstances, including those set out in Appendix 1 to the SRA Disciplinary Procedure Rules 2011.

      4. The SRA considers it appropriate that this agreement is published in the interests of transparency in the regulatory and disciplinary process.



      Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this Agreement



      1. Mr Proddow agrees that he will not act in any way which is inconsistent with this agreement such as, for example, by denying the admissions made in this agreement.

      2. If Mr Proddow acts in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement, the conduct which is subject to this agreement may be subject to further consideration by the SRA. That may result in a disciplinary sanction or a referral to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal on the original facts and allegations. Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement may also constitute a separate breach of Principles 2, 6 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2011.,/li>





      Costs



      1. Mr Proddow agrees to pay the costs of the SRA's investigation in the sum of ?600. Such costs are due within 28 days of a statement of costs due being issued by the SRA.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      26/07/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/020555.article?Decision=2017-03-20

      Outcome: Condition
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      The suspension of Mr Mohammed Asif Din's practising certificate for 2016/2017 is terminated subject to the following conditions:



      (i) Mr Din may act as a solicitor only in employment, the arrangements for which must first be approved by the SRA.

      (ii) Mr Din may not act as a manager of owner of any authorised body.

      (iii) Mr Din may not act as a compliance office for legal practice.

      (iv) Mr Din may not hold or receive client money, or act as a signatory to any client or office account, or have the power to authorise transfers from any client or office account.

      (v) Mr Din shall immediately inform any actual or prospective employer of these conditions and the reason for their imposition.



      In these conditions the definitions are as defined in the SRA Handbook Glossary 2012.



      Reasons/basis

      Mr Din's 2016/2017 practising certificate was suspended as a result of the intervention into his practices at Dean Solicitors Ltd (SRA ID: 567452), Sovereign Solicitors (SRA ID: 463100) and Shire Solicitors (SRA ID: 462367).

      The above conditions are considered to be necessary in the public interest and reasonable and proportionate having regard to the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 and the regulatory objectives and principles governing regulatory activities as contained in section 28 of the Legal Services Act 2007.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      18/07/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/372062.article?Decision=2017-07-18

      Outcome: Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal order
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis

      This notification relates to a decision to prosecute before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. This is an independent Tribunal which reaches its own decision after considering all the evidence, including any evidence put forward by the respondent(s). The Tribunal had certified that there was a case to answer.?

      The matter was determined by the Tribunal on the 18 July 2017.?

      The Order was made after the Tribunal considered an application to approve an agreed outcome.



      The Tribunal ordered that the firm White & Case LLP pay a fine of ?250,000.



      The Tribunal also ordered that David Goldberg, a partner in the firm, pay a fine of ?50,000.?

      The firm admitted that it:?



      Allowed work to be carried out for clients without causing adequate steps to be taken to ensure that no conflict or significant risk of conflict existed between the interests of clients, and in so doing breached Outcome O(3.5) of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011 and Principle 6 of the SRA Principles 2011;?

      Allowed instructions to be accepted to undertake further work for clients without causing adequate steps to be taken to ensure the confidentiality of information provided to the firm by clients was protected, and in so doing breached Outcome O(4.4) of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011 and Principle 6 of the SRA Principles 2011;?

      Acted recklessly in respect of the matters set out above.?



      Mr Goldberg admitted that he:?



      Acted for clients in circumstances in which there was a significant risk of a conflict of interests between clients and in doing so breached Outcome O(3.5) of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011and Principle 6 of the SRA Principles 2011;?

      Did not take or cause to be taken adequate steps to ensure the protection of confidentiality of information provided to the firm by or acquired during the course of acting for clients and in so doing breached Outcome O(4.4) of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011 and Principles 4 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011;?

      Continued to act for clients in circumstances in which there was a significant risk of a conflict of interests between clients and in so doing breached Outcome O(3.5) of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011 and Principle 6 of the SRA Principles 2011;?

      Provided confidential information concerning the work being undertaken on behalf of a client in one matter to a partner in the firm involved in acting on a matter giving rise to a significant risk of a conflict of interest between clients and in doing so breached Outcome O(4.1) of the SRA Code of Conduct and Principles 4 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011;?

      Failed to cause adequate steps to be taken to ensure that no conflict existed between the interests of clients and in doing so breached Outcome O(3.5) of the SRA Code of Conduct and Principle 6 of the SRA Principles 2011;?

      Failed to take adequate steps to protect the confidentiality of information of clients and in so doing breached Outcome O(4.4) of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011and Principles 4 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011;?

      In respect of matters at 5 and 6 above, as the partner with overall responsibility for the matter involved, in not making inquiry as to specific matters relating to the client instructions, acted recklessly.?



      For the avoidance of doubt the SRA did not allege that the firm or Mr Goldberg acted dishonestly. Further, the SRA, having considered the evidence submitted by and on behalf of Mr Goldberg and the firm, did not pursue allegations of lack of integrity against either Mr Goldberg or the firm.?

      The SRA is satisfied that the admissions and outcome satisfy the public interest having regard to the gravity of the matters alleged.?

      The SDT judgment when published will be available at www.solicitorstribunal.org.uk

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      18/07/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/266174.article?Decision=2018-04-18

      Outcome: Condition
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      To impose the following conditions on Mr Ali's 2016/17 registration as a foreign lawyer:



      Mr Ali shall not complete or sign any professional indemnity insurance forms.

      While at an authorised body, Mr Ali shall not carry out immigration work or any non-reserved work unless this is under the direction and supervision of a person qualified to supervise pursuant to rule 12 of the SRA Practice Framework Rules 2011.

      Mr Ali shall not be a manager, member or interest holder of an authorised body or authorised non-SRA firm. This condition shall not apply to his current role at Malik Law Chambers.

      Mr Ali shall not be an employee of an authorised body without the SRA's prior approval, or an employee of an authorised non-SRA firm without the prior approval of the relevant approved regulator. This condition shall not apply to his current role at Malik Law Chambers.



      The defined terms are set out in the SRA Handbook Glossary 2012.



      Reasons/basis

      On 26 May 2016 the following formal allegations were made against Mr Ali. These are contained in a statement issued pursuant to rule 5 of the Solicitors (Disciplinary Proceedings Rules) 2007:

      Allegation 1

      In breach of either or both of principles 2 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2011, Mr Ali provided misleading information in an insurance proposal form dated 9 September 2011 about the following:



      The firm's gross fee income.

      Whether any fee earner had practised in a firm subject to an investigation by the SRA.



      Allegation 2

      In breach of either or both of principles 2 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2011, Mr Ali provided misleading information in an insurance proposal form dated 15 August 2014 about:



      The firm's gross fee income.

      The firm's dealings with the SRA.

      Whether any fee earner in the firm had had an award made against him or her by the Legal Ombudsman.

      Whether any fee earner in the firm had entered into a regulatory settlement agreement with the SRA.

      Whether any fee earner in the firm had ever been the subject of "an Independent Voluntary Arrangement (IVA) or other arrangement"



      Allegation 3

      Mr Ali submitted (or allowed to be submitted on his behalf) an application for judicial review dated 12 December 2011 in which it was misleadingly asserted that his client SMH was:

      "out of funds and therefore it was impossible for him to instruct his representative. He has recently arranged the funds and gave instructions straightaway. The application is being filed at the first opportunity."

      By virtue of the above, he breached any or all of Principles 1, 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011.

      Allegation 4

      Mr Ali acted dishonestly in respect of the first two allegations.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      18/07/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/449150.article?Decision=2017-07-18

      Outcome: Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal order
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis



      This notification relates to a decision to prosecute before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. This is an independent Tribunal which reaches its own decision after considering all the evidence, including any evidence put forward by the respondent(s). The Tribunal had certified that there was a case to answer.?

      The matter was determined by the Tribunal on the 18 July 2017.?

      The Order was made after the Tribunal considered an application to approve an agreed outcome.



      The Tribunal ordered that the firm White & Case LLP pay a fine of ?250,000.



      The Tribunal also ordered that David Goldberg, a partner in the firm, pay a fine of ?50,000.?

      The firm admitted that it:?



      Allowed work to be carried out for clients without causing adequate steps to be taken to ensure that no conflict or significant risk of conflict existed between the interests of clients, and in so doing breached Outcome O(3.5) of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011 and Principle 6 of the SRA Principles 2011;?

      Allowed instructions to be accepted to undertake further work for clients without causing adequate steps to be taken to ensure the confidentiality of information provided to the firm by clients was protected, and in so doing breached Outcome O(4.4) of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011 and Principle 6 of the SRA Principles 2011;?

      Acted recklessly in respect of the matters set out above.



      Mr Goldberg admitted that he:?



      Acted for clients in circumstances in which there was a significant risk of a conflict of interests between clients and in doing so breached Outcome O(3.5) of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011and Principle 6 of the SRA Principles 2011;?

      Did not take or cause to be taken adequate steps to ensure the protection of confidentiality of information provided to the firm by or acquired during the course of acting for clients and in so doing breached Outcome O(4.4) of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011 and Principles 4 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011;?

      Continued to act for clients in circumstances in which there was a significant risk of a conflict of interests between clients and in so doing breached Outcome O(3.5) of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011 and Principle 6 of the SRA Principles 2011;?

      Provided confidential information concerning the work being undertaken on behalf of a client in one matter to a partner in the firm involved in acting on a matter giving rise to a significant risk of a conflict of interest between clients and in doing so breached Outcome O(4.1) of the SRA Code of Conduct and Principles 4 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011;?

      Failed to cause adequate steps to be taken to ensure that no conflict existed between the interests of clients and in doing so breached Outcome O(3.5) of the SRA Code of Conduct and Principle 6 of the SRA Principles 2011;?

      Failed to take adequate steps to protect the confidentiality of information of clients and in so doing breached Outcome O(4.4) of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011and Principles 4 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011;?

      In respect of matters at 5 and 6 above, as the partner with overall responsibility for the matter involved, in not making inquiry as to specific matters relating to the client instructions, acted recklessly.?



      For the avoidance of doubt the SRA did not allege that the firm or Mr Goldberg acted dishonestly. Further, the SRA, having considered the evidence submitted by and on behalf of Mr Goldberg and the firm, did not pursue allegations of lack of integrity against either Mr Goldberg or the firm.?

      The SRA is satisfied that the admissions and outcome satisfy the public interest having regard to the gravity of the matters alleged.?

      The SDT judgment when published will be available at www.solicitorstribunal.org.uk

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      13/07/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/402312.article?Decision=2017-07-13

      Outcome: Rebuke
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      It was found that Mr Saini breached the following in connection with this shortage and the firm's accounts:



      Rules 1.2(e) and (f), 6.1, 7.1, 20.6 and 29.4 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011.

      Principles 8 and 10 of the SRA Principles 2011. Page 18 of 18 Official-Sensitive



      He received a written rebuke and was ordered to pay the SRA's costs of ?675 in investigating this matter.



      Reasons/basis Mr Harsimran Saini is a director of the firm, HS Lawyers Limited whose head office is at 79 Birmingham Road, West Bromwich, West Midlands B70 6PX. While a director of the firm a shortage of ?15,979.92 arose on the firm's client account. This has been replaced by the directors.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      13/07/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/314425.article?Decision=2017-07-13

      Outcome: Referral to Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis

      This notification relates to a Decision to prosecute before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. This is an independent Tribunal which will reach its own decision after considering all the evidence, including any evidence put forward by the Solicitor. The Tribunal has certified that there is a case to answer in respect of allegations which are or include that :-



      He created and presented a false Grant of Probate to the Halifax Building Society in November 2015 in order to close the account of Mr P F (deceased).

      He deliberately altered the transaction date on a TR2 form from the 13 May 2013 to 13 October 2013 in a conveyancing transaction; forged the signatures of Mr J McA, his witness and Mr D McK on a TR1 form; and purported to witness the signature of Mr D McK on a TR1 form when Mr D McK did not sign the TR1 form in his presence or at all, the Respondent having forged Mr D McK?s signature.

      In or about June 2014, he forged the signatures of Trustees, Mr T M and Mr S L on a DS1 form to discharge a charge in the Trust?s favour over a client?s property; and/or presented or caused to be presented the DS1 form in June 2014 to the Land Registry.

      He failed to disclose material information he knew of to his lender client (Nat West Bank), in relation to the purchase of 23 Spinners Yard between 2011 and 2014.

      He released mortgage funds to a transferor when there was no contract of sale and/or took inadequate steps to ensure the lender client would have a first legal charge.

      He acted in matters in which a conflict of interest existed, or came into existence during the course of the retainer whilst acting for the seller, buyer and lender for 23 Spinners Yard during the period from 2011 to 2014.

      On 1 October 2013, he provided misleading information to his lender client in a letter by stating that "...the funds for VAT were provided on a short-term loan basis to the client by a third party" when he knew his lay client, Mr M G had not agreed to receive any loan and was unaware that any loan had been made.

      By failing to respond to written correspondence sent to him by the SRA, he failed to deal with his regulator in an open, timely and co-operative manner.



      The allegations are subject to a Hearing before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal and are as yet unproven.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      10/07/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/348649.article?Decision=2018-01-19

      Outcome: Intervention
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details

      Decision to intervene into the practice of Richard Charles Prescott trading as Prescotts Solicitors.

      Reasons/basis



      There is reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of Mr Prescott in connection with his practice as a solicitor (Solicitors Act 1974, Schedule 1, Part I, paragraph 1(1)(a)(i);

      Mr Prescott has failed to comply with rules made by the SRA under sections 31 and 32 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (Solicitors Act 1974, Schedule 1, Part I, paragraph 1(1)(c)).



      Intervening agents

      John Owen of

      Gordons LLP,

      Forward House, 8 Duke St. Bradford, BD1 3QX has been appointed as the intervening agent.



      For enquiries please

      call

      or email

      intervention@gordonsllp.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      07/07/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/164279.article?Decision=2018-04-12

      Outcome: Condition
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      Mr Barber's practising certificate for 2016/2017 is subject to the following conditions:



      Mr Barber must submit an accountant's report for Barber & Co for the period 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2016 within fourteen days.

      Mr Barber may not become an owner or manager of a recognised sole practice or an authorised body without the SRA's prior written approval.



      In these conditions, the definitions are defined in the SRA Handbook Glossary 2012.



      Reasons/basis

      Serious allegations have been raised against Mr Barber in relation to the management of his sole practice Barber & Co. Whilst Mr Barber's conduct is yet to be determined by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, the SRA is satisfied that the conditions above act as a safeguard to restrict his practice as a solicitor.

      The conditions are both necessary and in the public interest having regard to the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 and the regulatory objectives and principles governing regulatory activities as contained in section 28 of the Legal Services Act 2007.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      06/07/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/122924.article?Decision=2017-07-06

      Outcome: Intervention
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details

      Decision to intervene into practice of the late Susan Reynolds formerly acting as Reynolds & Hawkes.

      Reasons/basisThe Adjudication Panel have decided to intervene into the practice of the late Susan Reynolds, formerly practising as Reynolds & Hawkes, on the ground that it is necessary to exercise the powers of intervention to protect the interests of her clients and former clients (Paragraph 1(1)(m) Schedule 1 - Solicitors Act 1974).

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      06/07/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/081196.article?Decision=2017-07-03

      Outcome: Intervention
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details

      Decision to intervene into practice.

      Reasons/basisThe Adjudication Panel is satisfied that grounds for intervention existed under Paragraph 1(1)(c) of Schedule 1 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended) that Piers Matthew Beach has failed to comply with the SRA Principles 2011, the SRA Code of Conduct 2011, the Solicitors Code of Conduct 2007, The Guide to the Professional Conduct of Solicitors (7th and 8th edition) and the Solicitors Practice Rules 1990 which are rules made under section 31 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended).Intervening agentsSusie Dryden of

      Blake Morgan LLP,

      New Kings Court, Tollgate, Chandlers Ford, Eastleigh SO53 3LG has been appointed as the intervening agent.



      For enquiries please

      call

      or email

      interventions@blakemorgan.co.uk.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      05/07/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/294688.article?Decision=2017-07-05

      Outcome: Regulatory settlement agreement
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis

      1. Ian Thomas Giddings of Woolley & Co Limited of Warwick Enterprise Park, Wellesbourne, Warwick, CV35 9EF agrees to the following outcome of the investigation into his professional conduct under reference CDT/1162813-2016.

      Background

      2. On 22 March 2016, the Compliance Officer for Legal Practice of Woolley & Co reported the conduct of Mr Giddings.

      3. That Report stated that:



      a) Mr Giddings had acted for a husband (Mr H) in a financial dispute following a divorce. A valuation of the former matrimonial home was required.

      b) Mr H wanted that valuation to be carried out by a valuer who was a member of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors. The wife (Mrs H) did not.

      c) On 21 March 2016, Mr. Giddings told Mr H that he had sent a letter to the Court explaining Mr H?s position. This was inaccurate. Mr. Giddings had not sent such a letter.

      d) Mr H asked for a copy of the letter. Mr Giddings created a letter, backdated it and sent it to Mr H by email.

      e) Mr Giddings told Woolley & Co within hours of what he had done. Woolley & Co then told Mr H that Mr Giddings had not written to the Court.

      f) There has been no complaint by Mr H. The only referral was from the CoLP of the firm.



      4. In the course of the investigation documents have been obtained from Woolley & Co which confirm that the allegations about the conduct of Mr Giddings are true.

      5. Mr Giddings has provided evidence that at the time of the misconduct, there were very serious personal matters that had a significant impact upon Mr Giddings' state of mind, including his ability to recognise that his actions in making an inaccurate statement to his client and creating and backdating a letter would be considered dishonest by the standards of honest people.

      Admissions

      6. Mr Giddings makes, and the SRA accepts, the following admissions:



      a) He created a letter which he knew had not been sent to the court, in breach of Principles 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011.

      b) He provided inaccurate information to his client over the telephone, and provided him with a copy of the created letter as evidence to support his position, in breach of Principles 2, 5 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011.

      c) In relation to a) and b), his actions would be considered dishonest by the standards of honest people.



      Mitigation

      7. Mr Giddings and the documents disclose the following by way of mitigation:



      a) At the time of the misconduct, very serious personal matters that impacted upon his state of mind.

      b) His misconduct was an isolated incident of very short duration.

      c) He quickly realised that he had acted improperly and reported his misconduct to his employer shortly after it occurred.

      d) His actions had no impact upon Mr H Nor did they affect the outcome of the dispute between Mr and Mrs H.

      e) Mr H did not suffer any financial loss as a result of his misconduct.

      f) He did not gain financially from his misconduct (and there was no financial motivation for his actions).

      g) An audit of his files by Woolley & Co revealed no other matters of concern.

      h) Mr Giddings, who has been in practice since 2003, has not previously been the subject of disciplinary action by the SRA.



      Regulatory Outcome

      8. As Mr Giddings has accepted the above breaches, an outcome that involves the admissions set out in paragraph 6 above is proportionate in all the circumstances. The circumstances are exceptional such that Mr Giddings does not represent a risk to the public and it is not necessary for Mr Giddings to be referred to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal in order to maintain public confidence in the solicitors' profession.

      9. Mr Giddings is therefore rebuked for the admitted breaches above and is fined ?2,000.

      10. Mr Giddings agrees that this outcome will be published by the SRA and that it may also be disclosed to any person upon request or otherwise.

      11. Mr Giddings agrees to pay the costs of the investigation, including the SRA's legal costs, in the sum of ?1,350 inclusive of VAT within 28 days of a statement of costs due being issued by the SRA, or within a time period agreed by the SRA.

      12. Mr Giddings agrees he will not act in any way that is inconsistent with this agreement by, for example, denying the misconduct he has admitted above.

      13. If the undertaking contained in paragraph 10 above or any other terms of this agreement are not complied with within the time limits agreed, or if Mr Giddings acts inconsistently in any way with this agreement, Mr Giddings accepts that all issues may be referred back to the SRA for reconsideration, including that there be referral to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal or SRA internal sanction on the original facts and allegations and also on the basis that such failure to comply constitutes a breach of Principles 2, 6 and 7 SRA Principles 2011.

      The date of this agreement is 5 July 2017.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      05/07/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/016067.article?Decision=2017-12-07

      Outcome: Condition
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      Davinder Singh Bal is subject to Regulation 3 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011.

      Davinder Singh Bal's practising certificate for 2016/2017 has been granted subject to the following condition which is necessary, reasonable and proportionate in the public interest:



      Mr Bal shall not take on the role of manager or owner of an authorised body without the advance approval of the SRA.



      In this condition the definitions are as defined in the SRA Handbook Glossary 2012.



      Reasons/basisThe above conditions are considered to be necessary in the public interest and reasonable and proportionate having regard to the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 and the regulatory objectives and principles governing regulatory activities as contained in section 28 of the Legal Services Act 2007.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      03/07/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/042928.article?Decision=2018-06-28

      Outcome: Intervention
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details

      To intervene into the current and former practice of Nabeel Amer Sheik.

      Reasons/basis



      There is reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of Mr Sheikh in connection with his practice as a solicitor; (paragraph 1(1)(a)(i) Schedule 1 Solicitors Act 1974) and

      Mr Sheikh has failed to comply with rules made by virtue of section 31 of the Solicitors Act 1974. (paragraph 1(1)(c) Schedule 1 Solicitors Act 1974).



      Intervening agents

      James Dunn of

      Devonshires,

      30 Finsbury Circus, London, EC2M 7DT has been appointed as the intervening agent.



      For enquiries please

      call

      or email

      intervention-team@devonshires.co.uk.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      29/06/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/103884.article?Decision=2017-06-29

      Outcome: Intervention
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details

      Intervention.

      Reasons/basisThe Adjudication Panel have decided to intervene into the practice of the late Clifford Macfarlane King, formerly practising as King Solicitors on the grounds that it is necessary to exercise the powers of intervention to protect the interests of his clients and former clients (Paragraph 1(1)(m) Schedule 1 - Solicitors Act 1974).Other informationMr King passed away on 3 April 2017.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      23/06/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/359830.article?Decision=2017-11-28

      Outcome: Intervention
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details

      Decision to intervene into practice.

      Reasons/basis

      The Adjudication Panel is satisfied that it is necessary to exercise the powers of intervention to protect the interests of clients (and former or potential clients) of Mr Majid (Paragraph 1(1)(m) Schedule 1 - Part I Solicitors Act 1974).

      The Adjudication Panel is satisfied that Mr Majid has failed to comply with rules made by virtue of sections 31 and 32 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (Paragraph 1(1)(c) Schedule 1 - Part I Solicitors Act 1974).

      Intervening agents

      Ann Harrison of

      Stephensons Solicitors LLP,

      Wigan Investment Centre, Waterside Drive, Wigan, Lancashire, WN3 5BA has been appointed as the intervening agent.



      For enquiries please

      call

      or email

      sraenquiries@stephensons.co.uk.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      23/06/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/629416.article?Decision=2017-06-23

      Outcome: Intervention
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details

      The Adjudication Panel decided to intervene into the practice of Coops Law Ltd.

      Reasons/basis



      The Adjudication Panel was satisfied that there is reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of Mr Irfan Khan Akram in connection with Coops Law Ltd's business (Paragraph 2(d) of Schedule 14 to the Legal Services Act 2007).

      The Adjudication Panel is satisfied that it is necessary to intervene to protect the interests of clients of Coops Law Ltd (Paragraph 2(f) of Schedule 14 to the Legal Services Act 2007).

      The Adjudication Panel is satisfied that Coops Law Ltd has not complied with the terms of its licence (Paragraph 1(2)(a) of Schedule 14 to the Legal Service Act 2007).



      Intervening agents

      Ann Harrison of

      Stephensons Solicitors LLP,

      Wigan Investment Centre, Waterside Drive, Wigan, Lancashire, WN3 5BA has been appointed as the intervening agent.



      For enquiries please

      call

      0333 9997190 or email

      sraenquiries@stephensons.co.uk.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      22/06/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/614614.article?Decision=2017-06-22

      Outcome: Regulatory settlement agreement
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis

      1.1. Mr John Mitton, a former director of PG Legal Limited (the firm) of 5 Kingsway House, Kingsway, Team Valley, Tyne & Wear, NE11 0HW agrees to the following outcome to the investigation by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA):



      (a) An order under section 43 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (a Section 43 Order) is made in relation to Mr Mitton that with effect from the date of this agreement:



      (i) no solicitor shall employ or remunerate him in connection with his practice as a solicitor;

      (ii) no employee of a solicitor shall employ or remunerate him in connection with the solicitor's practice;

      (iii) no recognised body shall employ or remunerate him;

      (iv) no manager or employee of a recognised body shall employ or remunerate him in connection with the business of that body;

      (v) no recognised body or manager or employee of such a body shall permit him to be a manager of the body; and

      (vi) no recognised body or manager or employee of such body shall permit him to have an interest in the body



      except in accordance with the SRA's prior permission.

      (b) he is rebuked.

      (c) he is fined ?1,000.

      (d) he will pay the costs of the SRA investigation of ?600.

      (e) to the publication of this agreement.



      Summary of Facts

      2.1. Mr Mitton was a director of the firm from 17 July 2014 until 6 May 2016, during which he worked in the employment department.

      2.2. In December 2014 Mr Mitton was instructed by SW to act for him in his employment dispute with a recruitment agency.

      2.3. Between February 2015 and March 2016, Mr Mitton sent SW several emails which gave the impression to the reader that court proceedings had been issued. They had not. Mr Mitton had never drafted a court application for SW's claim.

      Admissions

      3.1. Mr Mitton admits and the SRA accepts that the emails he sent led SW to think that he had made an application to court to settle his employment dispute when he had not done. He has therefore breached Principle 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011.

      Mitigation

      4.1. The following points are advanced by way of mitigation on behalf of Mr Mitton, but their inclusion in this document does not amount to adoption or endorsement of such points by the SRA:



      (a) he was experiencing personal problems which meant that he was unable to devote his time to the firm;

      (b) he promptly admitted what he had done and accepted that his conduct was inappropriate, particularly as he was a director in the firm;

      (c) his clear regulatory history.



      Regulatory Outcome

      5.1. Mr Mitton agrees that he will be subject to an order under Section 43 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended).

      Rebuke and Fine

      5.2. Mr Mitton is fined ?1,000 and rebuked in respect of the breaches identified above.

      5.3. Mr Mitton also agrees that this outcome will be published by the SRA and that it may be disclosed to any person upon request or otherwise.

      5.4. Mr Mitton agrees that he will not act in any way which is inconsistent with this agreement such as, for example, by denying the admissions made in this agreement.

      5.5. If Mr Mitton acts in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement the conduct which is subject to this agreement may be subject to further consideration by the SRA. That may result in a disciplinary sanction or a referral to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal on the original facts and allegations. Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement may also constitute a separate breach of Principles 2, 6 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2011.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      22/06/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/614614.article?Decision=2017-06-22

      Outcome: Regulatory settlement agreement
      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis
      1.1. Mr John Mitton, a former director of PG Legal Limited (the firm) of 5 Kingsway House, Kingsway, Team Valley, Tyne & Wear, NE11 0HW agrees to the following outcome to the investigation by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA):

      (a) An order under section 43 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (a Section 43 Order) is made in relation to Mr Mitton that with effect from the date of this agreement:
      (i) no solicitor shall employ or remunerate him in connection with his practice as a solicitor;
      (ii) no employee of a solicitor shall employ or remunerate him in connection with the solicitor's practice;
      (iii) no recognised body shall employ or remunerate him;
      (iv) no manager or employee of a recognised body shall employ or remunerate him in connection with the business of that body;
      (v) no recognised body or manager or employee of such a body shall permit him to be a manager of the body; and
      (vi) no recognised body or manager or employee of such body shall permit him to have an interest in the body
      except in accordance with the SRA's prior permission.
      (b) he is rebuked.
      (c) he is fined ?1,000.
      (d) he will pay the costs of the SRA investigation of ?600.
      (e) to the publication of this agreement.
      Summary of Facts
      2.1. Mr Mitton was a director of the firm from 17 July 2014 until 6 May 2016, during which he worked in the employment department.

      2.2. In December 2014 Mr Mitton was instructed by SW to act for him in his employment dispute with a recruitment agency.

      2.3. Between February 2015 and March 2016, Mr Mitton sent SW several emails which gave the impression to the reader that court proceedings had been issued. They had not. Mr Mitton had never drafted a court application for SW's claim.

      Admissions
      3.1. Mr Mitton admits and the SRA accepts that the emails he sent led SW to think that he had made an application to court to settle his employment dispute when he had not done. He has therefore breached Principle 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011.

      Mitigation
      4.1. The following points are advanced by way of mitigation on behalf of Mr Mitton, but their inclusion in this document does not amount to adoption or endorsement of such points by the SRA:

      (a) he was experiencing personal problems which meant that he was unable to devote his time to the firm;
      (b) he promptly admitted what he had done and accepted that his conduct was inappropriate, particularly as he was a director in the firm;
      (c) his clear regulatory history.
      Regulatory Outcome
      5.1. Mr Mitton agrees that he will be subject to an order under Section 43 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended).

      Rebuke and Fine
      5.2. Mr Mitton is fined ?1,000 and rebuked in respect of the breaches identified above.

      5.3. Mr Mitton also agrees that this outcome will be published by the SRA and that it may be disclosed to any person upon request or otherwise.

      5.4. Mr Mitton agrees that he will not act in any way which is inconsistent with this agreement such as, for example, by denying the admissions made in this agreement.

      5.5. If Mr Mitton acts in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement the conduct which is subject to this agreement may be subject to further consideration by the SRA. That may result in a disciplinary sanction or a referral to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal on the original facts and allegations. Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement may also constitute a separate breach of Principles 2, 6 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2011.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      20/06/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/551166.article?Decision=2017-06-20

      Outcome: Intervention
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details

      Decision to intervene into the recognised body, SJ Solicitors LLP.



      Reasons/basis





      The Panel was satisfied that grounds for intervention existed under paragraph 32(1)(a) of Schedule 2 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985, namely that the firm's managers (Kuldip Singh and Claire Diana Roberts) had failed to comply with rules applicable to them by virtue of section 9 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985.

      The Panel was satisfied that grounds for intervention existed under paragraph 32(1)(d) of Schedule 2 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985, namely that there was reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of a manager (Kuldip Singh) in connection with the firm's business.





      Intervening agents

      Michael Veal of

      Lester Aldridge LLP,

      Russell House, Oxford Road, Bournemouth, BH8 8EX, DX: 7623 Bournemouth has been appointed as the intervening agent.



      For enquiries please

      call

      01202 786341 or email

      intervention.enquiries@LA-Law.com.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      20/06/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/311828.article?Decision=2018-01-17

      Outcome: Intervention
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis



      The Panel was satisfied that grounds for intervention existed under Paragraph 1(1)(a) of Schedule 1 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended) as there was reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of Kuldip Singh in connection with his practice as a solicitor.

      The Panel was further satisfied that grounds for intervention existed under Paragraph 1(1)(c) of Schedule 1 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended) as Kuldip Singh had failed to comply with the rules made by virtue of Sections 31 and 32 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended).

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      19/06/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/160480.article?Decision=2017-06-18

      Outcome: Intervention
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis

      The Panel was satisfied that grounds for intervention existed under paragraph 1(1)(a) of Schedule 1 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended) namely that there was reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of Huw Price in connection with his practice as a solicitor.

      The Panel was satisfied that grounds for intervention existed under paragraph 1(1)(m) of Part I of Schedule 1 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended) namely that it was necessary to exercise the powers of intervention in order to protect the interests of the former clients of Huw Price.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      19/06/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/133730.article?Decision=2017-06-19

      Outcome: Regulatory settlement agreement
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis

      1. Buglear Bate & Co agrees to the following outcome of the investigation into its professional conduct under reference CDT/1137541-2015.

      Background

      2. On 22 April 2015, the SRA received a report raising concerns arising from the firm's involvement in Stamp Duty Land Tax ("SDLT") schemes.

      3. Following a request for information, the firm provided evidence indicating the firm had acted in 30 conveyancing transactions which completed between May 2011 and April 2012 where clients has been a party to a Stamp Duty Land Tax ("SDLT") scheme to avoid/mitigate the payment of stamp duty. This resulted in the non-payment of ?863,833.50 to HMRC. Inventive Tax Strategies Ltd ("ITS") promoted 22 of the schemes and Strategic Ideas Ltd ("SIL") promoted 8 of the schemes. In each case the firm facilitated an unlimited company scheme.

      4. The firm billed, in addition to their conveyancing charges, a further ?7,715 (excluding VAT) for facilitation of the SDLT schemes. The charge to the client varied from ?250 to ?375 (excluding VAT) per matter. ITS received ?174,583.70 (inclusive of VAT). The firm cannot confirm the total received by SIL because the fees were paid direct to SIL by the clients.

      5. HMRC issued technical newsletters in August 2007 and June 2010, which demonstrated that HMRC did not consider the schemes to be legitimate tax avoidance schemes especially since the introduction of anti-avoidance legislation in December 2006.

      Unlimited company scheme

      6. In the "Unlimited Company Scheme", a limited company was incorporated with the purchaser client subscribing for shares, with the company's specific purpose being to purchase the property. The company contracts with the seller to purchase the property and the funds generated by the share subscription are used by the company to facilitate the purchase. A repayment of the capital is made by way of a transfer of the property to the shareholders of the company (the buyer client) which is done simultaneously at the time of completion. The company is subsequently wound up once registration has taken place.

      Failure to disclose material information to lender clients thereby failing to act in the lender clients' best interests

      7. Of the 30 conveyancing transactions dealt with, 21 involved mortgage advances with the firm acting for both buyer and lender clients. The firm had an obligation to disclose to their lender clients all information material to the buyer clients' matters.

      8. The firm did not tell their lender clients that the buyer clients were using an SDLT scheme to avoid paying SDLT nor did it tell the lender clients how the transactions were structured. The result was that the lender clients were not given material information sufficient to reach an informed decision as to whether to proceed with the mortgage offer or to renegotiate the terms of the offer.

      9. In failing to disclose material information, the firm failed to act in the best interests of their lender clients.

      Acting in transactions where there was a conflict or significant risk of conflict between the interests of two or more clients

      10. The firm acted where there was a conflict between the interests of the buyer and lender clients in those transactions involving a mortgage. A conflict or significant risk of conflict existed between the buyer and lender clients because the firm owed separate duties to act in the best interests of both the buyer and lender clients in relation to the same transactions.

      Transfer of mortgage monies from one client ledger to the ledger of another client without authority

      11. The firm maintained separate ledgers for its lender clients and buyer clients on each transaction.

      12. The mortgage advance belonged to the lender client and not the buyer client until completion. Improper removal of these monies (ie without the lender client's consent) amounted to a breach of rule 22 of the Solicitors' Accounts Rules 1998 and rule 20 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011. The firm did not notify the lender clients that a company would utilise the mortgage advance to purchase the property before the property was subsequently transferred to the buyer clients.

      Mitigation

      13. The firm puts forward the following by way of mitigation for the breaches admitted below:



      a) The firm began to operate the schemes in 2011 when they became widespread within the industry, feeling constrained to advise clients of the availability of such schemes.

      b) Within 8 working hours of publication of the SRA warning notice dated 16 February 2012, the firm ceased involvement with all cases involving a scheme, save for those where the client was already contractually committed to proceed. Buyer clients who had not yet exchanged contracts were given the choice of either proceeding with their purchases without the use of the scheme or, if they wished to use the scheme, the firm agreed that they would waive their full costs and transfer the papers to an alternative firm of the clients' choice.

      c) The firm's analysis at the time was that the company was the same legal person as the buyer and that there were no material issues to bring to the lender's attention. The firm accepts in hindsight that this was mistaken analysis.

      d) The firm accepts the transfer of mortgage monies without authority and accepts it had analysed incorrectly at the time that there was no material distinction between the unlimited liability company and its owners and it considered that the company was purely a technical and artificial device for the purpose of the tax scheme.



      14. The firm has co-operated with the SRA's investigation.

      Admissions

      15. The firm makes, and the SRA accepts, the following admissions:



      a) Contrary to rules 1.04, 1.05, 1.06 and 4.02 of the Solicitors' Code of Conduct 2007 ("2007 Code") Principles 4, 5 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011 ("2011 Principles") and Outcomes 1.1, 1.2, 1.12 and 4.2 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011 ("2011 Code"), they failed to disclose material information to lender clients and act in lender clients' best interests.

      b) Contrary to rules 3.01(1) and 3.01(2)(a) of the 2007 Code, Principles 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the 2011 Principles and Outcome 3.5 of the 2011 Code, they acted in transactions where there was a conflict or a significant risk of conflict between the interests of two or more clients.

      c) Contrary to Rule 22 of the Solicitors' Accounts Rules 1998 and rule 20 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011, they permitted a transfer of client funds to the ledger of another client without authority from the first client to do so.



      16. The firm is fined ?1,500.00 for the breaches identified at paragraph 15 above.

      17. The firm agrees that this outcome may be published by the SRA and it may also be disclosed to any person upon request or otherwise.

      18. The firm agrees that it will not act in any way inconsistent with this agreement by, for example, denying its admitted misconduct.

      19. If the firm acts in any way inconsistent with this agreement, it accepts that the issues may be referred back to the SRA for consideration or referral of their conduct to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal on the original facts and allegations and also on the basis that such failure to comply with this agreement may constitute a breach of Principles 2, 6 and 7 of the 2011 Principles.

      20. The firm agrees to jointly pay the SRA costs in the sum of ?1,350 within 28 days of receipt of an invoice for the costs from the SRA.

      The date of this Agreement is 19 June 2017.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      13/06/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/142859.article?Decision=2017-06-13

      Outcome: Rebuke
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis

      Agreed outcome

      1.1. Richard Roy Murrall, solicitor, agrees to the following outcome to the investigation of his conduct by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA):



      (a) he is rebuked.

      (b) he is fined ?2000.

      (c) to the publication of this agreement.

      (d) he will pay the costs of the investigation of ?300.



      Summary of Facts

      2.1. On 7 July 2016, Mr Murrall was convicted of driving with excess alcohol at Kidderminster Magistrates' Court.

      2.2. The sentence was:



      (a) Disqualification from diving for 40 months.

      (b) A 12 month Community Order with supervision.

      (c) An unpaid work requirement of 80 hours.



      2.3. Mr Murrall was also ordered to pay:



      (a) a victim surcharge of ?85.

      (b) costs of ?135.00.



      Admissions

      3.1. Mr Murrall makes the following admissions which the SRA accepts:



      (a) That by virtue of his conviction for driving with excess alcohol, he has failed to uphold the rule of law in breach of Principle 1 of the SRA Principles 2011.



      Why the agreed outcome is appropriate

      4.1. The SRA considers that the agreed outcome is appropriate as the conditions in rule 3.1 of the SRA Disciplinary Rules 2011 are met, in that:



      (a) the conduct was deliberate or reckless.

      (b) the agreed outcome is a proportionate outcome in the public interest.

      (c) the conduct was neither trivial nor justifiably inadvertent.



      4.2. In deciding that the agreed outcome is proportionate, the SRA has taken into account the admissions made by Mr Murrall and the following mitigation which he has put forward:



      (a) Mr Murrall is extremely remorseful about the offence. He has also taken appropriate measures to address his conduct to prevent these circumstances reoccurring in the future.

      (b) Mr Murrall has the full support and confidence of his current employer.



      4.3. The amount of the fine takes into account all relevant circumstances, including those set out in Appendix 1 to the SRA Disciplinary Procedure Rules 2011.

      4.4. The SRA considers it appropriate that this agreement is published in the interests of transparency in the regulatory and disciplinary process.

      Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this Agreement

      5.1. Mr Murrall agrees that he will not act in any way which is inconsistent with this agreement such as, for example, by denying the admissions made in this agreement.

      5.2. If Mr Murrall acts in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement, the conduct which is subject to this agreement may be subject to further consideration by the SRA. That may result in a disciplinary sanction or a referral to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal on the original facts and allegations. Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement may also constitute a separate breach of Principles 2, 6 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2011.

      Costs

      6.1. Mr Murrall agrees to pay the costs of the SRA's investigation in the sum of ?300. Such costs are due within 28 days of a statement of costs due being issued by the SRA.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      09/06/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/092903.article?Decision=2018-06-20

      Outcome: Rebuke
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details

      Mr Harold Anthony Newell is the sole practitioner at T S Barkes & Son, a recognised sole practice whose head office is at Barklays House, High Street, Moreton-In-Marsh, Gloucestershire, GL56 0AX. Mr Newell failed to provide an adequate explanation of his conduct to the SRA and failed to comply with an undertaking. Mr Newell was found to have breached Principle 7 of the SRA Principles and failed to achieve Outcomes 10.6 and 11.2 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011. He was made subject to regulation 3.1(b) of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011. A written rebuke was issued against Mr Newell. He was directed to pay a penalty of ?1,000 and costs of ?600.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      09/06/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/414358.article?Decision=2017-06-09

      Outcome: Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal order
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis

      Outcome of SDT Hearing

      This notification relates to a Decision to prosecute before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. This is an independent Tribunal which reaches its own decision after considering all the evidence, including any evidence put forward by the Respondent. The Tribunal had certified that there was a case to answer.

      The matter was heard on 24 April 2017 ? 9 June 2017.

      The Tribunal found the allegations against Ms Crowther not proved and ordered that the allegations be dismissed.

      The SDT judgment will be available at www.solicitorstribunal.org.uk

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      08/06/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/224963.article?Decision=2018-01-24

      Outcome: Fine
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      John Kayode Olufemi Aina has been found to have acted in breach of Principles 1 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011 by failing to comply with a court order dated 11 May 2016.

      Mr Aina was not recorded as practising at the time of the above conduct. He is not believed to be practising currently.

      Mr Aina received a written rebuke and was ordered to pay a financial penalty of ?2,000. He was also ordered to pay the SRA's costs of ?600.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      07/06/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/374151.article?Decision=2017-06-07

      Outcome: Rebuke
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis

      It was found that the firm, Morgan Has Solicitors Limited, whose head office is at Bank Chambers, 1st & 2nd floor, 133 Stoke Newington High Street, London, N16 0PH:



      failed to carry out client account reconciliations over a 12 month period (April 2015 to March 2016); and

      that its accounting records failed to accurately record its liabilities to clients as at 31 March 2016.



      Its conduct in this regard breached Principle 10 of the SRA Principles 2011 and also breached rules 1.2(e), 1.2(f), 29.1, 29.2, 29.9, 29.12 and 29.13 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011.

      It was also found that Mr Has, the firm's compliance officer for finance and administration (COFA), acted in breach of rule 8.5(e)(iii) of the SRA Authorisation Rules 2011 by failing to report to the SRA material failures to comply with the SRA Accounts Rules 2011 (as detailed above). Mr Has remains the firm's COFA.

      The firm and Mr Has both received a written rebuke. The firm was directed to pay costs in the sum of ?1,080 and Mr Has was directed to pay costs of ?270.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      05/06/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/132852.article?Decision=2017-06-05

      Outcome: Referral to Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis



      Outcome of SDT Hearing



      This notification relates to a Decision to prosecute before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. This is an independent Tribunal which reaches its own decision after considering all the evidence, including any evidence put forward by the Respondent. The Tribunal had certified that there was a case to answer.

      The matter was heard on 24 May 2018.

      Mr.Saggar was fined ?5,000.

      The SDT judgment will be available at www.solicitorstribunal.org.uk

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      05/06/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/207252.article?Decision=2017-06-05

      Outcome: Referral to Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis



      Outcome of SDT Hearing



      This notification relates to a Decision to prosecute before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. This is an independent Tribunal which reaches its own decision after considering all the evidence, including any evidence put forward by the Respondent. The Tribunal had certified that there was a case to answer.

      The matter was heard on 24 May 2018.

      Mr.Sofi was fined ?7,501.

      The SDT judgment will be available at www.solicitorstribunal.org.uk

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      02/06/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/341345.article?Decision=2018-06-13

      Outcome: Intervention
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis

      The Panel was satisfied that grounds for intervention existed under paragraph 1(1)(a) of Schedule 1 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended) namely that there was reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of Maureen Chinedu Agada in connection with her practice as a solicitor.

      The Panel was satisfied that grounds for intervention existed under paragraph 1(1)(c) of Schedule 1 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended) namely that Maureen Chinedu Agada had failed to comply with the rules made under sections 31 and 32 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended), namely the SRA Accounts Rules 2011 and the SRA Principles 2011.

      Intervening agents

      James Dunn of

      Devonshires Solicitors LLP,

      30 Finsbury Circus, London, EC2M 7DT has been appointed as the intervening agent.



      For enquiries please

      call

      or email

      intervention-team@devonshires.co.uk.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      02/06/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/338017.article?Decision=2017-06-02

      Outcome: Referral to Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis

      This notification relates to a Decision to prosecute before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. This is an independent Tribunal which will reach its own decision after considering all the evidence, including any evidence put forward by the Solicitor. The Tribunal has certified that there is a case to answer in respect of allegations which are or include that:



      By leading a judge to believe she was a barrister rather than a solicitor, Ms Maistry breached Principles 1, 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011.

      By misleading a solicitor as to her role in a case, Ms Maistry breached Principles 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011.

      By misleading the SRA during the course of its investigation, Ms Maistry breached Principles 2, 6 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2011.



      The allegations are subject to a Hearing before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal and are as yet unproven.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      02/06/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/299306.article?Decision=2018-06-13

      Outcome: Intervention
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basisThe Panel was satisfied that grounds for intervention existed under paragraph 1(1)(c) of Schedule 1 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended) namely that Ademola Weston had failed to comply with the rules made under sections 31 and 32 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended), namely the SRA Accounts Rules 2011 and the SRA Principles 2011.Intervening agentsJames Dunn of

      Devonshires Solicitors LLP,

      30 Finsbury Circus, London, EC2M 7DT has been appointed as the intervening agent.



      For enquiries please

      call

      or email

      intervention-team@devonshires.co.uk.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      02/06/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/357363.article?Decision=2017-06-02

      Outcome: Referral to Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis

      Outcome of SDT Hearing

      This notification relates to a Decision to prosecute before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. This is an independent Tribunal which reaches its own decision after considering all the evidence, including any evidence put forward by the Respondent. The Tribunal had certified that there was a case to answer.

      The matter was heard on 23 January 2018.

      Mr.Main was suspended from practise as a solicitor for the period up to and including 4 January 2019 to commence on the 23 January 2018.

      The SDT judgment will be available at www.solicitorstribunal.org.uk

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      02/06/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/100825.article?Decision=2017-06-02

      Outcome: Referral to Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis



      Outcome of SDT Hearing



      This notification relates to a Decision to prosecute before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. This is an independent Tribunal which reaches its own decision after considering all the evidence, including any evidence put forward by the Respondent. The Tribunal had certified that there was a case to answer.

      The matter was heard on 30 April 2018.

      Mr. Saunders was Struck Off the Roll.

      The SDT judgment will be available at www.solicitorstribunal.org.uk

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      31/05/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/133055.article?Decision=2017-05-31

      Outcome: Referral to Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis

      Outcome of SDT Hearing

      This notification relates to a Decision to prosecute before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. This is an independent Tribunal which reaches its own decision after considering all the evidence, including any evidence put forward by the Respondent. The Tribunal had certified that there was a case to answer.

      The matter was heard on 20 February 2018.

      Mr.Pickard was Struck Off the Roll.

      The SDT judgment will be available at www.solicitorstribunal.org.uk

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      26/05/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/138017.article?Decision=2017-05-26

      Outcome: Rebuke
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basisMr Peter McLintock is a partner at the firm, Mills & Reeve LLP. Mr McLintock admitted to breaching client confidentiality by sending an email to a third party on 4 June 2015. It was found that his conduct in this regard failed to achieve outcome 4.1 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011 and breached SRA principles 5, 6 and 7. He received a written rebuke and was ordered to pay the SRA's costs of ?600 in investigating this matter.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      25/05/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/511125.article?Decision=2017-05-25

      Outcome: Referral to Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis

      This notification relates to a Decision to prosecute before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. This is an independent Tribunal which will reach its own decision after considering all the evidence, including any evidence put forward by the Solicitor. The Tribunal has certified that there is a case to answer in respect of allegations which are or include that:



      In or around September 2014, he misappropriated monies belonging to a client totalling up to around ?19,500.00. Between approximately 20 January 2015 and 4 March 2015 he failed to return the monies upon request. Between approximately 5 March 2015 and 10 March 2016 he issued and maintained civil proceedings against the same client which were without merit and brought in order to extract further monies from her in the sum of ?1,500.00.



      The allegations are subject to a Hearing before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal and are as yet unproven.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      24/05/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/598975.article?Decision=2017-05-24

      Outcome: Intervention
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details

      The Adjudication Panel decided to intervene into the practice of Clinch Solicitors Limited.

      Reasons/basis



      The Adjudication Panel is satisfied that there is reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of Andrew Clinch in connection with the firm's business (paragraph 32(1)(d) of Schedule 2 to the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (as amended));

      The Adjudication Panel is satisfied that it is necessary to intervene to protect the interests of clients and former clients of the firm (paragraph 32(1)(e) of Schedule 2 to the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (as amended));

      The Adjudication Panel is satisfied that Andrew Clinch has breached the SRA Principles 2011 which are rules applicable to him by virtue of section 9 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (as amended) (paragraph 32(1)(a) of Schedule 2 to the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (as amended)).



      Intervening agents

      Marion Vesey of

      Shacklocks LLP,

      St Peter's House, Bridge Street, Mansfield, NG18 1AL has been appointed as the intervening agent.



      For enquiries please

      call

      01623 423073 or email

      interventionclinch@shacklocks.co.uk.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      24/05/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/138563.article?Decision=2017-05-24

      Outcome: Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal order
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis



      Outcome of SDT Hearing



      This notification relates to a Decision to prosecute before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. This is an independent Tribunal which reaches its own decision after considering all the evidence, including any evidence put forward by the Respondent. The Tribunal had certified that there was a case to answer.

      The matter was heard on 24 May 2017.

      Mr Lucatello was fined ?5,000.

      The SDT judgment will be available at www.solicitorstribunal.org.uk

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      24/05/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/366890.article?Decision=2017-05-24

      Outcome: Intervention
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details

      Decision to intervene into practice.

      Reasons/basis

      The Adjudication Panel is satisfied that there is reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of Andrew Clinch (paragraph 1(1)(a)(i) of Schedule 1 to the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended));

      The Adjudication Panel is satisfied that it is necessary to intervene to protect the interests of clients and former clients of Andrew Clinch (paragraph 1(1)(m) of Schedule 1 to the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended));

      The Adjudication Panel is satisfied that Andrew Clinch has breached the SRA Priniciples 2011 (paragraph 1(1)(c) of Schedule 1 to the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended)).

      Intervening agents

      Marion Vesey of

      Shacklocks LLP,

      St Peter's House, Bridge Street, Mansfield, NG18 1AL has been appointed as the intervening agent.



      For enquiries please

      call

      01623 423073 or email

      interventionclinch@shacklocks.co.uk.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      23/05/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/042886.article?Decision=2017-05-23

      Outcome: Referral to Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis



      Outcome of SDT Hearing



      This notification relates to a Decision to prosecute before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. This is an independent Tribunal which reaches its own decision after considering all the evidence, including any evidence put forward by the Respondent. The Tribunal had certified that there was a case to answer.

      The matter was heard on 6 and 7 March 2018.

      Mr.De Silva was fined ?12,500.

      The SDT judgment will be available at www.solicitorstribunal.org.uk

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      23/05/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/289154.article?Decision=2017-05-23

      Outcome: Referral to Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis



      Outcome of SDT Hearing



      This notification relates to a Decision to prosecute before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. This is an independent Tribunal which reaches its own decision after considering all the evidence, including any evidence put forward by the Respondent. The Tribunal had certified that there was a case to answer.

      The matter was heard on 6 and 7 March 2018.

      Mr.Hussain was fined ?12,500.

      The SDT judgment will be available at www.solicitorstribunal.org.uk

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      23/05/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/489218.article?Decision=2017-05-23

      Outcome: Referral to Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis



      Outcome of SDT Hearing



      This notification relates to a Decision to prosecute before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. This is an independent Tribunal which reaches its own decision after considering all the evidence, including any evidence put forward by the Respondent. The Tribunal had certified that there was a case to answer.

      The matter was heard on 6 and 7 March 2018.

      Ms. Kayani was fined ?10,000.

      The SDT judgment will be available at www.solicitorstribunal.org.uk

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      23/05/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/638662.article?Decision=2017-05-23

      Outcome: Referral to Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis



      Outcome of SDT Hearing



      This notification relates to a Decision to prosecute before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. This is an independent Tribunal which reaches its own decision after considering all the evidence, including any evidence put forward by the Respondent. The Tribunal had certified that there was a case to answer.

      The matter was heard on 6 and 7 March 2018.

      A section 43 Order was obtained in relation to Sheraz Sultan.

      The Tribunal ordered that, as from 7 March 2018, except in accordance with Law Society permission:-

      (i) No solicitor shall employ or remunerate Mr Sultan, in connection with his practice as a solicitor;

      (ii) No employee of a solicitor shall employ or remunerate Mr Sultan, in connection with the solicitor?s practice;

      (iii) No recognised body shall employ or remunerate the said Mr Sultan;

      (iv) No manager or employee of a recognised body shall employ or remunerate the said Mr Sultan in connection with the business of that body;

      (v) No recognised body or manager or employee of such a body shall permit the said Mr Sultan to be a manager of the body;

      (vi) No recognised body or manager or employee of such a body shall permit the said Mr Sultan to have an interest in the body.

      The SDT judgment will be available at www.solicitorstribunal.org.uk

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      18/05/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/555488.article?Decision=2017-05-18

      Outcome: Referral to Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis





      Outcome of SDT Hearing



      This notification relates to a Decision to prosecute before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. This is an independent Tribunal which reaches its own decision after considering all the evidence, including any evidence put forward by the Respondent. The Tribunal had certified that there was a case to answer.

      The matter was heard on 17 ? 20 September 2018.

      Brown Turner Ross Limited was fined ?25,000.

      The SDT judgment will be available at www.solicitorstribunal.org.uk

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      18/05/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/030036.article?Decision=2017-05-18

      Outcome: Referral to Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis



      Outcome of SDT Hearing



      This notification relates to a Decision to prosecute before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. This is an independent Tribunal which reaches its own decision after considering all the evidence, including any evidence put forward by the Respondent. The Tribunal had certified that there was a case to answer.

      The matter was heard on 17 ? 20 September 2018.

      Mr.Ross was suspended from practice for a period of 6 months commencing on 20 September 2018.

      The SDT judgment will be available at www.solicitorstribunal.org.uk

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      18/05/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/463843.article?Decision=2017-05-16

      Outcome: Intervention
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details

      Decision to intervene into Mr Abid's practice at Crescent Law.

      Reasons/basis



      There is reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of Mr Abid in connection with his practice as a solicitor - paragraph 1(1)(a)(i) Schedule 1, Part I, Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended);

      It is necessary to exercise the powers of intervention to protect the interests of clients (or former or potential clients) of Mr Uddin practising as Crescent Law - paragraph 1(1)(m) Schedule 1, Part I, Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended).



      Intervening agents

      Nigel Coates of

      Russell-Cooke,

      2 Putney Hill, London, SW15 6AB has been appointed as the intervening agent.



      For enquiries please

      call

      or email

      fiid@russell-cooke.co.uk.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      18/05/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/230967.article?Decision=2017-05-16

      Outcome: Intervention
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details

      Decision to intervene into Mr Uddin's practice at Crescent Law.

      Reasons/basis



      There is reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of Mr Uddin in connection with his practice as a solicitor - paragraph 1(1)(a)(i) Schedule 1, Part I, Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended);

      It is necessary to exercise the powers of intervention to protect the interests of clients (or former or potential clients) of Mr Uddin practising as Crescent Law - paragraph 1(1)(m) Schedule 1, Part I, Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended).



      Intervening agents

      Nigel Coates of

      Russell-Cooke,

      2 Putney Hill, London, SW15 6AB has been appointed as the intervening agent.



      For enquiries please

      call

      or email

      fiid@russell-cooke.co.uk.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      18/05/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/110533.article?Decision=2017-05-18

      Outcome: Referral to Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis



      Outcome of SDT Hearing



      This notification relates to a Decision to prosecute before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. This is an independent Tribunal which reaches its own decision after considering all the evidence, including any evidence put forward by the Respondent. The Tribunal had certified that there was a case to answer.

      The matter was heard on 17 ? 20 September 2018.

      Mr.Bushell was fined ?25,000.

      The SDT judgment will be available at www.solicitorstribunal.org.uk

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      15/05/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/498406.article?Decision=2017-05-15

      Outcome: Intervention
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details

      Decision to intervene into the recognised body, Heaney Watson Limited.

      Reasons/basis



      The Panel was satisfied that grounds for intervention existed under paragraph 32(1)(a) of Schedule 2 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985, namely that Heaney Watson Limited had failed to comply with the SRA Accounts Rules 2011 and the SRA Principles 2011.

      The Panel was satisfied that grounds for intervention existed under paragraph 32(1)(e) of Schedule 2 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985, that it was necessary to intervene to protect the interests of Heaney Watson Limited's clients (or former clients).



      Intervening agents

      Sean Joyce of

      Stephensons Solicitors LLP,

      Wigan Investment Centre, Waterside Drive, Wigan, Greater Manchester, WN3 5BA has been appointed as the intervening agent.



      For enquiries please

      call

      0333 344 4776 or email

      hwintervention@stephensons.co.uk.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      12/05/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/116719.article?Decision=2018-01-24

      Outcome: Condition
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      Mr Cocker is subject to Regulation 3 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011.

      His practising certificate for 2016/2017 is subject to the following condition which is necessary, reasonable and proportionate in the public interest:



      Mr Cocker may not act as a manager or owner of any authorised body.



      In this condition the definitions are as defined in the SRA Handbook Glossary 2012.



      Reasons/basisThe above conditions are considered to be necessary in the public interest and reasonable and proportionate having regard to the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 and the regulatory objectives and principles governing regulatory activities as contained in section 28 of the Legal Services Act 2007.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      04/05/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/136377.article?Decision=2017-05-04

      Outcome: Intervention
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details

      Decision to intervene into practice of the late Michael Douglas Harwood formerly practising as Harwood & Co.

      Reasons/basisThe Adjudication Panel have decided to intervene into the practice of the late Michael Douglas Harwood, formerly practising as Harwood & Co, on the ground that it is necessary to exercise the powers of intervention to protect the interests of his clients and former clients (Paragraph 1(1)(m) Schedule 1 - Solicitors Act 1974).Intervening agentsMarion Vesey of

      Shacklocks LLP,

      St Peter's House, Bridge Street, Mansfield, NG18 1AL has been appointed as the intervening agent.



      For enquiries please

      call

      01623 423073 or email

      interventionharwood@shacklocks.co.uk.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      04/05/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/430719.article?Decision=2017-05-15

      Outcome: Condition
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      Miss Hudson's practising certificate for 2016/2017 is subject to the following conditions which are necessary, reasonable and proportionate in the public interest:



      Miss Hudson may act as a solicitor, only as an employee whose role has first been approved by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

      Miss Hudson will immediately inform any actual or prospective employer authorised to provide legal services of these conditions and the reasons for their imposition.



      For definitions, the terms used are as defined in the SRA Handbook Glossary 2012.



      Reasons/basisThese conditions are imposed having regard to the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 and to the regulatory objectives contained in the Legal Services Act 2007 and the principles governing regulatory activities in section 28 of that Act.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      03/05/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/438566.article?Decision=2017-05-03

      Outcome: Rebuke
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details

      A written rebuke was issued against Mr Ngwuocha. He was directed to pay a financial penalty of ?2,000 and costs of ?1,350.

      Reasons/basisMr Ngwuocha trades as a recognised sole practice known as Carl Martin Solicitors whose head office is at Suite 411, 3 Coventry Road, Ilford, IG1 4QR. Mr Ngwuocha was found to have failed to keep his books of account properly written up; failed to remedy the breaches of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011 promptly upon discovery; and failed to comply with the terms of an undertaking. He thereby acted in breach of rules 6, 7.1, 17.2, 20.3(b), 29.1, 29.4 and 29.9 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011; Principles 6 and 8 of the SRA Principles and failed to achieve Outcome 11.2 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      02/05/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/155198.article?Decision=2018-10-04

      Outcome: Termination of suspension of PC/registration
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      The suspension of Mr Paul Matthews' practising certificate for 2016/2017 is terminated subject to the following condition:



      Mr Matthews may not act as a manager or owner of any authorised body.



      For definitions, please refer to the defined terms set out in the SRA Handbook Glossary 2012.



      Reasons/basis

      Mr Matthews was adjudged bankrupt on 26 April 2017 and his practising certificate was automatically suspended. This condition is considered to be necessary in the public interest and reasonable and proportionate having regard to the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011, the regulatory objectives contained in the Legal Services Act 2007 and the principles governing regulatory activities contained in section 28 of the Act.

      The above condition is imposed purely as a regulatory measure and is not intended to cast doubt on Mr Matthews' integrity, but that he is subject to regulatory controls exclusively as a result of his financial situation.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      26/04/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/519534.article?Decision=2017-12-08

      Outcome: Condition
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      Mohammed Imran is subject to Regulation 3 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011.

      Mohammed Imran's practising certificate for 2016/2017 is subject to the following conditions which are necessary, reasonable and proportionate in the public interest:



      Mr Imran may act as a solicitor only in employment which has first been approved, in writing, by the SRA.

      Mr Imran shall immediately inform any actual or prospective employer of these conditions and the reasons for their imposition.



      In these conditions the definitions are as defined in the SRA Handbook Glossary 2012.



      Reasons/basisThe above conditions are considered to be necessary in the public interest and reasonable and proportionate having regard to the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 and the regulatory objectives and principles governing regulatory activities as contained in section 28 of the Legal Services Act 2007.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      24/04/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/157661.article?Decision=2017-12-07

      Outcome: Intervention
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details

      To intervene into the practices of Mr Whitaker and Robert Nigel Wiggans, practising as Hellewell Pasley & Brewer.

      Reasons/basis

      There is reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of Mr Wiggans in connection with his practice as a solicitor - paragraph 1(1)(a)(i) Schedule 1, Part I, Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended).

      There has been a failure by Mr Wiggans and Mr Whitaker to comply with rules made under Section 31 and 32 of the Solicitors Act 1974 - paragraph 1(1)(c) Schedule 1, Part I, Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended).

      Intervening agents

      Susie Dryden of

      Blake Morgan,

      New Kings Court, Tollgate, Chandler's Ford, Eastleigh, SO54 3LG has been appointed as the intervening agent.



      For enquiries please

      call

      or email

      interventions@blakemorgan.co.uk.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      24/04/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/137077.article?Decision=2017-04-20

      Outcome: Intervention
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details

      To intervene into the practices of Mr Wiggans and Richard Marcus Whitaker, practising as Hellewell Pasley & Brewer.

      Reasons/basis

      There is reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of Mr Wiggans in connection with his practice as a solicitor - paragraph 1(1)(a)(i) Schedule 1, Part I, Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended).

      There has been a failure by Mr Wiggans and Mr Whitaker to comply with rules made under Section 31 and 32 of the Solicitors Act 1974 - paragraph 1(1)(c) Schedule 1, Part I, Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended).

      Intervening agents

      Susie Dryden of

      Blake Morgan,

      New Kings Court, Tollgate, Chandler's Ford, Eastleigh, SO53 3LG has been appointed as the intervening agent.



      For enquiries please

      call

      or email

      interventions@blakemorgan.co.uk.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      21/04/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/162410.article?Decision=2017-10-23

      Outcome: Condition
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      Mohsin Afsar is subject to Regulation 3 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011.

      Mr Afsar's practising certificate for 2016/2017 is subject to the following conditions which are necessary, reasonable and proportionate in the public interest:



      Mr Afsar is not a manager or owner of an authorised body.

      Mr Afsar may not act as a compliance officer for legal practice (COLP) or compliance officer for finance and administration (COFA) for any authorised body.

      Mr Afsar shall immediately inform any actual or prospective employer of these conditions and the reasons for their imposition.



      In these conditions, the definitions are as defined in the SRA Handbook Glossary 2012.



      Reasons/basisThe above conditions are considered to be necessary in the public interest and reasonable and proportionate having regard to the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 and the regulatory objectives and principles governing regulatory activities as contained in section 28 of the Legal Services Act 2007.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      19/04/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/122169.article?Decision=2017-04-17

      Outcome: Intervention
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis

      The Panel was satisfied that grounds for intervention existed under paragraph 1(1)(a)(i) of Schedule 1 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended) namely that there was reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of John Richard Killington in connection with his practice as a solicitor.

      The Panel was satisfied that grounds for intervention existed under paragraph 1(1)(c) of Schedule 1 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended) namely that John Richard Killington had failed to comply with the rules made under sections 31 and 32 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended), namely the SRA Accounts Rules 2011, the Solicitors Code of Conduct 2011 and the SRA Principles 2011.

      The Panel was satisfied that grounds for intervention existed under paragraph 1(1)(m) of Schedule 1 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended) namely that it was necessary to exercise the powers of intervention to protect the interests of Mr Killington's clients (or former clients) or the beneficiaries of any trust of which he was a trustee.

      Intervening agents

      Karen Thompson of

      Lester Aldridge LLP,

      Russell House, Oxford Road, Bournemouth, BH8 8EX has been appointed as the intervening agent.



      For enquiries please

      call

      or email

      intervention.enquiries@LA-Law.com.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      18/04/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/489594.article?Decision=2017-04-18

      Outcome: Referral to Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis





      Outcome of SDT Hearing



      This notification relates to a Decision to prosecute before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. This is an independent Tribunal which reaches its own decision after considering all the evidence, including any evidence put forward by the Respondent. The Tribunal had certified that there was a case to answer.

      The matter was heard on 25 ? 29 June 2018.

      Gans & Co Solicitors LLP was fined ?5,000.

      The SDT judgment will be available at www.solicitorstribunal.org.uk

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      12/04/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/275592.article?Decision=2017-04-12

      Outcome: Regulatory settlement agreement
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      This outcome was reached by agreement.

      Agreed outcome

      1.1 Paul Michael Ireland is the sole practitioner of Paul Ireland Solicitors of Warrington. Mr Ireland agrees to the following outcome to the investigation of his conduct by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA):



      (a) he is rebuked.

      (b) to the publication of this agreement.

      (c) he will pay the costs of the investigation of ?300.



      Summary of Facts

      2.1 Mr Ireland acted for a defendant in a civil dispute that was considered by the County Court.

      2.2 On 13 May 2016 the Court raised a complaint with the SRA about Mr Ireland's conduct in this matter. The Court stated that:



      (a) On 06 November 2015, Mr Ireland appeared at Court by telephone for the defendant. An Order was made requiring Mr Ireland to file a perfected order with the Court. Mr Ireland did not file the order.

      (b) On 03 February 2016 the Court wrote to him requiring him to file it by 10 February 2016. Mr Ireland did not file the order.

      (c) A further Order was made by the Court on 12 February 2016. The Order stated that unless Mr Ireland filed the perfected order by 19 February 2016 then he should attend the Court on 29 February to explain his failure. Mr Ireland did not file the order by 19 February 2016 nor did he attend Court on 29 February 2016.



      2.3 Mr Ireland stated that he failed to comply with the Court Orders due to administrative errors at his office. He confirmed that by the time he became aware of the Orders it was too late for him to take action. He did not contact the Court to inform it of the reasons for his failures.

      2.4 Mr Ireland wrote to the Court on 28 July 2016 apologising for his conduct.

      Admissions

      3.1 Mr Ireland admits and the SRA accepts that, by failing to comply with the Court Orders dated 06 November 2015 and 11 February 2016, he failed to uphold the proper administration of justice in breach of Principle 1 of the SRA Principles 2011 and failed to achieve Outcome 5.3 and 5.6 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011.

      Why the agreed outcome is appropriate

      4.1 The SRA considers that the agreed outcome is appropriate as the conditions in rule 3.1 of the SRA Disciplinary Rules 2011 are met, in that:



      (a) Mr Ireland failed to comply with the Court.

      (b) that the agreed outcome is a proportionate outcome in the public interest.

      (c) that the conduct was neither trivial nor justifiably inadvertent.



      4.2 In deciding that the agreed outcome is proportionate, the SRA has taken into account the admissions made by Mr Ireland and the following mitigation which he has put forward:



      (a) he has no adverse regulatory history;

      (b) he has put systems in place to avoid future breaches; and

      (c) he has apologised for his misconduct.



      4.3 The SRA considers it appropriate that this agreement is published in the interests of transparency in the regulatory and disciplinary process.

      Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this Agreement

      5.1 Mr Ireland agrees that he will not act in any way which is inconsistent with this agreement such as, for example, by denying the admissions made in this agreement.

      5.2 If Mr Ireland acts in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement, the conduct which is subject to this agreement may be subject to further consideration by the SRA. That may result in a disciplinary sanction or a referral to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal on the original facts and allegations. Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement may also constitute a separate breach of Principles 2, 6 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2011.

      Costs

      6.1 Mr Ireland agrees to pay the costs of the SRA's investigation in the sum of ?300. Such costs are due within 28 days of a statement of costs due being issued by the SRA.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      05/04/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/280361.article?Decision=2017-04-05

      Outcome: Referral to Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis



      Outcome of SDT Hearing



      This notification relates to a Decision to prosecute before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. This is an independent Tribunal which reaches its own decision after considering all the evidence, including any evidence put forward by the Respondent. The Tribunal had certified that there was a case to answer.



      The matter was heard on 26 September 2017.



      Mr Wilson was Struck Off the Roll.



      The SDT judgment will be available at www.solicitorstribunal.org.uk

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      30/03/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/348993.article?Decision=2017-03-29

      Outcome: Intervention
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details

      Decision to intervene into practice.

      Reasons/basis

      The Adjudication Panel is satisfied that it is necessary to intervene to protect the interests of clients and former clients of Kamran Akram (Paragraph 1(1)(m) to Schedule 1 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended).

      The Adjudication Panel is satisfied that Kamran Akram has breached the SRA Priniciples 2011 and the SRA Code of Conduct 2011 (Paragraph 1(1)(c) of Schedule 1 to the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended).

      Intervening agents

      Neal Boland of

      Stephensons Solicitors LLP,

      Wigan Investment Centre, Waterside Drive, Wigan, Lancashire, WN3 5BA has been appointed as the intervening agent.



      For enquiries please

      call

      or email

      sraenquiries@stephensons.co.uk.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      30/03/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/032030.article?Decision=2017-12-20

      Outcome: Intervention
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details



      The Panel was satisfied that grounds for intervention existed under paragraph 1(1)(a) of Schedule 1 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended) namely that there was reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of Kam Cheung Mak in connection with his practice as a solicitor.

      The Panel was satisfied that grounds for intervention existed under paragraph 1(1)(c) of Schedule 1 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended) namely that Kam Cheung Mak had failed to comply with the rules made under sections 31 and 32 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended), namely the SRA Accounts Rules 2011 and the SRA Principles 2011.



      Intervening agents

      John Gould of

      Russell-Cooke LLP,

      2 Putney Hill, London, SW15 6AB has been appointed as the intervening agent.



      For enquiries please

      call

      or email

      FIID@russell-cooke.co.uk.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      30/03/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/199950.article?Decision=2017-03-28

      Outcome: Intervention
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details

      The Panel was satisfied that grounds for intervention existed under paragraph 1(1)(c) of Schedule 1 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended) namely that Susan Carol Marziano had failed to comply with the rules made under sections 31 and 32 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended), namely the SRA Accounts Rules 2011 and the SRA Principles 2011.

      Intervening agents

      John Gould of

      Russell-Cooke LLP,

      2 Putney Hill, London, SW15 6AB has been appointed as the intervening agent.



      For enquiries please

      call

      or email

      FIID@russell-cooke.co.uk.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      27/03/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/030433.article?Decision=2017-03-27

      Outcome: Referral to Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Reasons/basis



      Outcome of SDT Hearing



      This notification relates to a Decision to prosecute before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. This is an independent Tribunal which reaches its own decision after considering all the evidence, including any evidence put forward by the Respondent. The Tribunal had certified that there was a case to answer.



      The matter was heard on 26 September 2017.



      Mr Proffitt was Struck Off the Roll.



      The SDT judgment will be available at www.solicitorstribunal.org.uk

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      22/03/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/020555.article?Decision=2017-03-20

      Outcome: Intervention
      Outcome details

      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

      Decision details

      Decision to intervene into practice.

      Reasons/basisThe Adjudication Panel decided to intervene into the practices of Mohammed Asif Din at Dean Solicitors Ltd, Sovereign Solicitors and Shire Solicitors on the ground that there is reason to suspect dishonesty by Mr Din in connection with his practices at these firms (paragraph 1(1)(a)(i) Schedule 1 - Part I Solicitors Act 1974 as amended). Other informationMohammed Asif Din's practising certificate has been suspended with immediate effect.Mr Din currently practises with Ismail Patel under the name Dean Solicitors Ltd. Please note that the intervention resolution only relates to Mr Din at Dean Solicitors Ltd and NOT Ismail Patel.Mr Din currently practises in partnership Shameem Ali-Iqbal under the name Sovereign Solicitors. Please note that the intervention resolution only relates to Mr Din at Sovereign Solicitors and NOT Shameem Ali-Iqbal.Mr Din currently practises in partnership with Sarah Khan-Bashir under the name Shire Solicitors. Please note that the intervention resolution only relates to Mr Din at Shire Solicitors and NOT Sarah Khan-Bashir.Intervening agentsJohn Owen of

      Gordons LLP,

      Forward House, 8 Duke Street, Bradford, BD1 3QX has been appointed as the intervening agent.



      For enquiries please

      call

      or email

      intervention@gordonsllp.com.

      Was this review helpful?  
      Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

      Respond   Report abuse

      Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

      22/03/17

      Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/026771.article?Decision=2018-03-14

      Outcome: Condition
      This outcome was reached by SRA decision.
      Decision details

      Miss Chowdhury is subject to regulation 3 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011. Her practising certificate for 2016 / 2017 is subject to the following conditions which are necessary, reasonable and proportionate in the public interest:

      She may act as a solicitor, only as an employee.
      She is not a signatory to any client or office account and does not have the power to authorise any electronic payments or transfers from client or office account.
      She shall immediately inform any actual or prospective employer of these conditions and the reasons for their imposition.

      For definitions, please refer to the defined terms set out in the SRA Handbook Glossary 2012.

      Reasons/basis
      These conditions are imposed having regard to the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 and to the regulatory objectives contained in the Legal Services Act 2007 and the principles governing regulatory activities in section 28 of that Act.

      Was this review helpful?