Ashfords LLP, Exeter Reviews & Information

Home > UK Solicitor > Exeter > Ashfords LLP

Mobile phone icon01392 337 000Email iconEmail
Laptop iconWebsite

Facilities Office has disabled access

Languages spoken Afrikaans, Arabic, Dutch, English, French, German, Latin, Spanish, Welsh 
Size of firm 112 solicitors


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

  • Administrative and public law
  • Advocacy
  • Agriculture
  • Banking
  • Benefits and allowances
  • Charities
  • Children
  • Clinical negligence
  • Commercial litigation
  • Commercial property
  • Company and commercial
  • Construction
  • Consumer
  • Conveyancing - residential
  • Corporate finance
  • Crime - fraud
  • Crime - general
  • Cross-border
  • Debt and bankruptcy - personal
  • Debt recovery
  • Defamation
  • Dispute resolution - civil mediation
  • Dispute resolution - commercial mediation
  • Education
  • Employment
  • Energy and natural resources
  • Environment
  • European Community law
  • Family - general
  • Financial services
  • Information Technology
  • Insolvency and restructuring - business
  • Insurance
  • Intellectual property
  • Landlord and tenant - residential
  • Licensing gaming and betting
  • Litigation - general
  • Maritime and shipping
  • Media
  • entertainment and sport
  • Mental health
  • Mergers and acquisitions
  • Neighbour disputes
  • Personal injury
  • Planning
  • Private client - Probate
  • Private client - trusts
  • Private client - Wills
  • Professional negligence
  • Tax
  • Travel and tourism


Add review

Filter Reviews

 


Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

29/08/18

Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/642917.article?Decision=2018-08-29

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

This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

Decision details



THE MATTER OF: Colin Duck of Whipton, Exeter

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 Duck 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 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 Duck of Whipton, Exeter 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

29/08/18

Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/642917.article?Decision=2018-08-29

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

Decision details
THE MATTER OF: Colin Duck of Whipton, Exeter

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 Duck 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 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 Duck of Whipton, Exeter 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 1

Respond   Report abuse

Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

24/08/18

Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/642917.article?Decision=2018-08-29

Outcome: Rebuke
Outcome details

This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

Decision details



At the material time, Ashfords LLP employed Mr Duck as an equity release trainee and then as an equity release assistant.

He resigned from the firm on 15 June 2017 with immediate effect.

The following findings were made in relation to conduct which occurred in 2016 and 2017:



Mr Duck created and sent two letters to the tenant of his property on 29 January 2016 and 25 August 2016 which contained the following false and misleading information:



They stated that Ashfords LLP acted for Mr Duck in connection with the rental management of the tenanted property when it did not.They contained false reference numbers.They stated that they were written by Mr X when they were not.They contained a false job title for Mr X.



?

Mr Duck misled Ashfords LLP during its internal investigation into his conduct.

The above conduct was dishonest and breached SRA Principles 2 and 6.



An order was made pursuant to section 43(2) of the Solicitors Act 1974 in relation to Mr Duck and he was given a written rebuke and was ordered to pay a ?2,000 financial penalty. He was also ordered to pay the SRA's costs of ?600 in investigation of this matter.

Mr Duck is not currently working at or for an SRA regulated practice.

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/642917.article?Decision=2018-08-29

Outcome: Rebuke
This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

Decision details
At the material time, Ashfords LLP employed Mr Duck as an equity release trainee and then as an equity release assistant.

He resigned from the firm on 15 June 2017 with immediate effect.

The following findings were made in relation to conduct which occurred in 2016 and 2017:

Mr Duck created and sent two letters to the tenant of his property on 29 January 2016 and 25 August 2016 which contained the following false and misleading information:
They stated that Ashfords LLP acted for Mr Duck in connection with the rental management of the tenanted property when it did not.
They contained false reference numbers.
They stated that they were written by Mr X when they were not.
They contained a false job title for Mr X.

Mr Duck misled Ashfords LLP during its internal investigation into his conduct.
The above conduct was dishonest and breached SRA Principles 2 and 6.
An order was made pursuant to section 43(2) of the Solicitors Act 1974 in relation to Mr Duck and he was given a written rebuke and was ordered to pay a ?2,000 financial penalty. He was also ordered to pay the SRA's costs of ?600 in investigation of this matter.

Mr Duck is not currently working at or for an SRA regulated practice.

Was this review helpful?  
Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 1

Respond   Report abuse

Subscribe to updates

Complete the form below to be notified of new reviews or responses added for this solicitor.


terms of use

Enter this code » Verify

Related links

About us
Legal info
For Solicitors
FAQ
20175 solicitor reviews

3,266,413 page views