2 reviews and information for Graham & Rosen Limited, Hull

Home > UK Solicitor > Hull > Graham & Rosen Limited

How to find us

8 Parliament Street, Hull, East Riding of Yorkshire, HU1 2BB

Other branches


Languages spoken English, French, German 
Size of firm 12 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

  • Advocacy
  • Children
  • Clinical negligence
  • Commercial litigation
  • Commercial property
  • Company and commercial
  • Conveyancing - residential
  • Cross-border
  • Employment
  • European Community law
  • Family - general
  • Family - mediation
  • Landlord and tenant - residential
  • Licensing gaming and betting
  • Litigation - general
  • Neighbour disputes
  • Personal injury
  • Private client - Probate
  • Private client - trusts
  • Private client - Wills
  • Tax


Add review

Filter Reviews

 


Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

30/11/17

Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/081016.article?Decision=2017-11-30

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 Richard Frederick Palmer (081016) and Sheena Kay Taylor (392069) 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. The allegations against the First Respondent, Richard Frederick Palmer, are that, while in practice as: (i) a solicitor at and a partner in Graham & Rosen Solicitors, until around 1 August 2012; (ii) thereafter, a solicitor at, a director of and a shareholder in Graham & Rosen Limited (collectively, ?the Firm?), until around September 2014:

Involvement in dubious and/or illegal investment schemes

1.1 He acted in relation to and thereby facilitated a number of property development schemes (?the Schemes?), all or any of which were:

1.1.1 dubious investment schemes or bore hallmarks of fraudulent financial arrangements;

1.1.2 collective investment schemes (?CIS?) within the meaning of section 235 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (?the FSMA?), or risked being

1.1.3 operated by persons unauthorised by the Financial Services Authority (?FSA?), or its successor bodies to operate CIS, contrary to section 19 FSMA;

Inadequate advice

1.2 He failed to advise his clients investing in the Schemes (?investor clients?), or cause them to be advised, adequately or at all, in respect of:

1.2.1 the dubious nature of the Schemes;

1.2.2 risks inherent in the Schemes;

1.2.3 risks inherent in relying on Company N, to insure investments in the Schemes against the risk of their failure;

1.2.4 (where relevant) the conflicts of interest or risk thereof referred to in allegation 1.4 below;

1.2.5 the Schemes? non-compliance, or risk of non-compliance, with the FSMA;

1.2.6 the import of any non-compliance by the Schemes or their operators with the FSMA;

Failure to safeguard client money

1.3 In respect of (at least) one of the Schemes, he failed to protect his investor clients? money including in that he:

1.3.1 caused or allowed the release of their funds, other than in accordance with relevant contractual arrangements;

1.3.3 failed to request or obtain his investor clients? agreement to a purported novation of the relevant contractual arrangements to Company W;

1.3.4 failed to advise that the purported novation was therefore ineffective;

1.3.5 failed to advise that his investor clients would therefore have no valid claim as creditors in the event of Company W?s liquidation;

Conflict of interest

1.4 Having initially acted for Company K, in relation to the design and establishment of the one of the Schemes, he subsequently acted for investor clients in respect of this Scheme and others operated by Company K or associates(collectively, ?the K Schemes?), thereby giving rise to:

1.4.1 one or more conflicts between his interests and those of his investor clients;

1.4.2 one or more conflicts between the interests of investor clients and those of Company K (or its associates);

1.4.3 a conflict between his ongoing duty of confidentiality to Company K (or its associates) and his obligation to act with single minded loyalty in the best interests of his investor clients;

1.4.4 alternatively, a significant risk of one or more such conflicts;

Company N

1.5 He advised investor clients, or allowed them to be advised, that they could rely upon Company N to insure investments in the Schemes against the risk of their failure, in circumstances where:

1.5.1 purported due diligence into Company N was inadequate;

1.5.2 purported due diligence into Company N provided no or no proper basis for such advice;

1.5.3 Company N was domiciled and/or registered in an offshore tax haven (Nevis), outside the European Union and European Economic Area;

1.5.4 Company N was controlled by Mr RSH and/or Mrs DH, a husband and wife team based in Texas, where they were not licensed to transact insurance business

1.5.5 Company N was not registered with or regulated by the FSA to carry on any deposit guarantee bond or insurance business or any other business in the UK;

1.5.6 the Respondents were at material times on notice of serious concerns as to the bona fides and/or solvency of Company N;

1.5.7 the Respondents were aware of no other insurance company which would insure investments in the Schemes against the risk of their failure;

Sheena Kay Taylor

2. The allegation against the Second Respondent, Sheena Taylor, is that, while employed as a non-solicitor fee earner by the Firm, between approximately May 2010 and September 2014, she was guilty of conduct of such a nature that, in the opinion of the SRA, it would be undesirable for her to be involved in a legal practice, in that she:

2.1 Acted in relation to and thereby facilitated the Schemes, or assisted the First Respondent to do so;

2.2 Failed to advise investor clients, or cause them to be advised, adequately or at all, in respect of the facts and matters referred to in allegation 1.2 above;

2.3 In respect of (at least) one of the Schemes, failed to protect investor clients? money, including in that she was complicit in the First Respondent?s actions and omissions referred to in allegation 1.3 above (save for those referred to in paragraphs 1.3.4 and 1.3.5 of that allegation);

2.4 Acted or assisted the First Respondent to act for investor clients in respect of the K Schemes, or any of them, in the circumstances and with the consequences referred to in allegation 1.4 above;

2.5 Advised investor clients, or allowed them to be advised, that

they could rely upon Company N to insure investments in the Schemes against the risk of their failure, in the circumstances referred to in allegation 1.5 above.

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

Other information

Please see link to related decision:



Sheena Kay Taylor(SRA ID: 392069)

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/392069.article?Decision=2017-11-30

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 Richard Frederick Palmer (081016) and Sheena Kay Taylor (392069) 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. The allegations against the First Respondent, Richard Frederick Palmer, are that, while in practice as: (i) a solicitor at and a partner in Graham & Rosen Solicitors, until around 1 August 2012; (ii) thereafter, a solicitor at, a director of and a shareholder in Graham & Rosen Limited (collectively, ?the Firm?), until around September 2014:

Involvement in dubious and/or illegal investment schemes

1.1 He acted in relation to and thereby facilitated a number of property development schemes (?the Schemes?), all or any of which were:

1.1.1 dubious investment schemes or bore hallmarks of fraudulent financial arrangements;

1.1.2 collective investment schemes (?CIS?) within the meaning of section 235 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (?the FSMA?), or risked being

1.1.3 operated by persons unauthorised by the Financial Services Authority (?FSA?), or its successor bodies to operate CIS, contrary to section 19 FSMA;

Inadequate advice

1.2 He failed to advise his clients investing in the Schemes (?investor clients?), or cause them to be advised, adequately or at all, in respect of:

1.2.1 the dubious nature of the Schemes;

1.2.2 risks inherent in the Schemes;

1.2.3 risks inherent in relying on Company N, to insure investments in the Schemes against the risk of their failure;

1.2.4 (where relevant) the conflicts of interest or risk thereof referred to in allegation 1.4 below;

1.2.5 the Schemes? non-compliance, or risk of non-compliance, with the FSMA;

1.2.6 the import of any non-compliance by the Schemes or their operators with the FSMA;

Failure to safeguard client money

1.3 In respect of (at least) one of the Schemes, he failed to protect his investor clients? money including in that he:

1.3.1 caused or allowed the release of their funds, other than in accordance with relevant contractual arrangements;

1.3.3 failed to request or obtain his investor clients? agreement to a purported novation of the relevant contractual arrangements to Company W;

1.3.4 failed to advise that the purported novation was therefore ineffective;

1.3.5 failed to advise that his investor clients would therefore have no valid claim as creditors in the event of Company W?s liquidation;

Conflict of interest

1.4 Having initially acted for Company K, in relation to the design and establishment of the one of the Schemes, he subsequently acted for investor clients in respect of this Scheme and others operated by Company K or associates(collectively, ?the K Schemes?), thereby giving rise to:

1.4.1 one or more conflicts between his interests and those of his investor clients;

1.4.2 one or more conflicts between the interests of investor clients and those of Company K (or its associates);

1.4.3 a conflict between his ongoing duty of confidentiality to Company K (or its associates) and his obligation to act with single minded loyalty in the best interests of his investor clients;

1.4.4 alternatively, a significant risk of one or more such conflicts;

Company N

1.5 He advised investor clients, or allowed them to be advised, that they could rely upon Company N to insure investments in the Schemes against the risk of their failure, in circumstances where:

1.5.1 purported due diligence into Company N was inadequate;

1.5.2 purported due diligence into Company N provided no or no proper basis for such advice;

1.5.3 Company N was domiciled and/or registered in an offshore tax haven (Nevis), outside the European Union and European Economic Area;

1.5.4 Company N was controlled by Mr RSH and/or Mrs DH, a husband and wife team based in Texas, where they were not licensed to transact insurance business

1.5.5 Company N was not registered with or regulated by the FSA to carry on any deposit guarantee bond or insurance business or any other business in the UK;

1.5.6 the Respondents were at material times on notice of serious concerns as to the bona fides and/or solvency of Company N;

1.5.7 the Respondents were aware of no other insurance company which would insure investments in the Schemes against the risk of their failure;

Sheena Kay Taylor

2. The allegation against the Second Respondent, Sheena Taylor, is that, while employed as a non-solicitor fee earner by the Firm, between approximately May 2010 and September 2014, she was guilty of conduct of such a nature that, in the opinion of the SRA, it would be undesirable for her to be involved in a legal practice, in that she:

2.1 Acted in relation to and thereby facilitated the Schemes, or assisted the First Respondent to do so;

2.2 Failed to advise investor clients, or cause them to be advised, adequately or at all, in respect of the facts and matters referred to in allegation 1.2 above;

2.3 In respect of (at least) one of the Schemes, failed to protect investor clients? money, including in that she was complicit in the First Respondent?s actions and omissions referred to in allegation 1.3 above (save for those referred to in paragraphs 1.3.4 and 1.3.5 of that allegation);

2.4 Acted or assisted the First Respondent to act for investor clients in respect of the K Schemes, or any of them, in the circumstances and with the consequences referred to in allegation 1.4 above;

2.5 Advised investor clients, or allowed them to be advised, that

they could rely upon Company N to insure investments in the Schemes against the risk of their failure, in the circumstances referred to in allegation 1.5 above.

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

Other information

Please see link to related decision:



Richard Frederick Palmer (SRA ID: 81016)

Was this review helpful?  
Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

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
32479 solicitor reviews

4,557,489 page views