23 June 2014
www.lawgazette.co.uk
Decisions SOLICITORS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL
Decisions filed recently with the Law Society (which may be subject to appeal) include:
Katherine Anne Edwards • Application 11190-2013
• Admitted 2010
• Hearing 26 February 2014 • Reasons 10 April 2014
The SDT ordered that the respon- dent should be struck off the roll. The respondent had signed two last- ing powers of attorney in the name of a solicitor without their authority so to do and had thereby breached rules 1.02, 1.04 and 1.06 of the Solic- itors Code of Conduct 2007; she had failed to disclose the fact that she had done so to the SRA in her application for admission as a solicitor and for a practising certificate, and had thereby further breached rules 1.02, 1.06, 20.01 and 20.04 of the code; and in respect of both the above allegations the respon- dent had acted dishonestly. The SDT had considered with great
care the many wonderful references produced for the respondent. It was notable that they included a testi- monial from JPS, the partner whose signature she had forged. The respon- dent was clearly held in high regard by her employers and by clients. The SDT noted that the respondent had had no personal gain from what she had done in the first instance, save perhaps that she had been spared the embarrassment of admitting that she had made a mistake when the LPAs were first signed in not arranging for appropriate certification. She had been young and inexperienced and had been working under the supervision of a locum, who had also failed to spot the need for certification. The respondent had not suggested that at the time she had been working under any particular pressure. She had forged a signature (twice) and should have admitted that when applying to become a solicitor. The SDT considered that it was
bound by the authority of Sharma. It did not consider that there were exceptional circumstances which would justify deviation from the nor- mal order where dishonesty had been found. The SDT noted that some of the public might wonder whether it was correct to remove from the profession someone who was clearly so good at her job. However, it had to consider the reputation of the profession as a whole. An order striking off the respon- dent was appropriate in the light of the authorities and on the facts of the case. Nevertheless, the SDT had con- siderable sympathy for the respondent.
The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £2,000.
1• Hearings 17 December 2013, • Reasons 28 April 2014
• Admitted 1978 7 March 2014
The SDT ordered that the respondent should be struck off the roll. In breach of rule 1.04 of the Solicitors Code of Conduct 2007, the respondent had failed to act in the best interests of each client; in breach of rule 1.02 of the code he had failed to act with integrity, and in so doing he was dis- honest; and in breach of rule 1.06 of the code he had acted in a way that had diminished the trust the public placed in him and/or the profession. Further, in breach of rule 20 of the
SRA Accounts Rules 2011 the respon- dent had withdrawn money from cli- ent account in circumstances other than permitted by the said rule and in so doing he was dishonest; and in breach of principle 7 of the SRA Principles 2011 he had failed to deal with the SRA in an open, timely and co-operative manner. The SDT had found that the respon-
dent had been dishonest, in two respects. In the case of SRA v Sharma [2010] EWHC 2022 (Admin), it was made clear that, save in exceptional circumstances, a finding of dishonesty would lead to a striking-off order and such an order was the normal and necessary penalty. The SDT could not find that there were any exceptional circumstances. There had been no medical evidence produced of the stress and depression from which the respondent had stated he was suffering. While the SDT could not reject the respondent’s evidence on that point, it was not supported by independent evidence and the SDT noted that the respondent had been able to work for two to three days per week as an SDT judge during the rel- evant periods. The dishonest acts had occurred on three separate occasions, over a period of more than three years and so could not be said to be momen- tary. There might have been limited personal gain to the respondent but the harm to the reputation of the pro- fession was substantial. It was a very sad case, given the respondent’s long career and his service as an SDT judge in the Social Entitlement Chamber. The only appropriate and proportion- ate sanction was to strike the respon- dent from the roll. The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £24,380.
Michael Gerald Dotchon • Application 11153-2013
Abiodun Oludare Odunlami
• Application 10797-2011 • Admitted 2007
• Hearing 3, 4 March 2014 • Reasons 17 April 2014
The SDT ordered that the respon- dent should be struck off the roll. The respondent had failed to deliver an accountant’s report for the period ending 31 May 2009 promptly or at all, contrary to rule 35 of the Solicitors Accounts Rules 1998; he had breached practising certificate conditions, con- trary to principles 6 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2011; and he had failed to ful- fil undertakings, contrary to rule 10.05 of the Solicitors Code of Conduct 2007. The SDT now dealing with these
current complaints was extremely con- cerned that the respondent was appear- ing before the SDT for the third time. That indicated that he had not learned his lesson at all. The current matters were all extremely serious, and notwith- standing the fact that the respondent had already been subjected to a sub-
stantial fine and a period of suspension in the past, he was appearing yet again before the SDT. Clients had suffered sub- stantial losses as a result of the respon- dent’s conduct and it was quite clear to the SDT that the respondent was a risk to the public and the reputation of the profession. It was not acceptable for a solicitor to appear before the SDT on three occasions, and it was particularly notable that the respondent had shown no insight and had failed to accept any responsibility for his conduct. Indeed, he had sought to blame his staff instead. Having regard to the overall facts
of the misconduct and the respon- dent’s previous appearances, the SDT concluded that allowing his name to remain on the roll would have a detrimental effect upon the public’s confidence in the reputation of the profession. The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £45,000, not to be enforced without leave of the SDT (save that the applicant might apply for a charging order over any property owned by the respondent). Continued on page 22
Software headaches? Take a Quill pill!
✓ Pain-free practice management ✓ Legal accounts well-being ✓ Healthy system uptime ✓ Feel-good support services
IN PRACTICE 21
Manage your practice painlessly with Quill Interactive
0161 236 2910
info@quill.co.uk www.quill.co.uk
Scan here for fast relief
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36