SDT Decisions and SRA interventions

The SDT ordered that the respondent should pay a fine of £27,500.  

The respondent had admitted that while he was practising as a solicitor at Kennedys Law in respect of the purchase of, and subsequent sale of, units in the Grosvenor Hotel Bristol he had failed to conduct adequate client due diligence, and, in doing so, had breached principles 7 and 8 of the SRA Principles 2011; had failed to achieve outcome 7.5 of the SRA Code 2011; had caused the firm to breach regulation 7 of the Money Laundering Regulations 2007 (MLRs 2007); and for conduct taking place from 26 June 2017, had caused the firm to breach regulation 27 of the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017 (MLRs 2017).

He had failed to conduct sufficient ongoing monitoring of the business relationship with his client, thereby: breaching principles 7 and 8 of the Principles; failing to achieve outcome 7.5 of the code; causing the firm to breach regulation 8 of the MLRs 2007; and for conduct taking place from 26 June 2017, had caused the firm to breach regulation 28 of the MLRs 2017.

He had caused, allowed or acted in transactions which bore the hallmarks of fraud, thereby breaching principles 6 and 10 of the Principles.

He had authorised or allowed payments to be made to Mr Varma totalling up to £925,000, to KD Law of £10,000 and to Casa Investments Ltd totalling up to £133,500 in circumstances which bore the hallmarks of fraud, thereby breaching principle 6 of the Principles and rule 14.5 of the SRA Accounts Rules.

The parties had invited the SDT to deal with the allegations against the respondent in accordance with a statement of agreed facts and outcome annexed to the judgment.

The SDT had reviewed all the material before it and was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the respondent’s admissions had been properly made.

The SDT had determined that a financial penalty of £27,500 was appropriate and proportionate to the seriousness of the respondent’s misconduct.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £25,000.

The SDT ordered that the respondent should be suspended from practice as a solicitor for 12 months from 29 August 2024, such suspension to be suspended for two years.

On or around 29 January 2021, while in practice as a solicitor at Jackson Lees Group Ltd, the respondent had created and backdated a letter to make it appear to be a contemporaneous document, as she had not progressed the relevant case, thereby breaching principles 2, 4 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019, and paragraph 1.4 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors 2019.

The conduct in question was dishonest and a finding of dishonesty would, absent exceptional circumstances, require an order striking the solicitor from the roll.

In the present case, the nature of the dishonesty was the creation and backdating of a document in order to create the impression that the respondent had completed work that had not been done at the time she stated it had been. The conduct had been motivated by a desire to avoid further criticism from a colleague repeatedly demanding to be furnished with an immediate update as to what work had been done on behalf of the client.

If there was any benefit to the respondent from the conduct in question, it was very marginal and would have involved no more than the respondent being relieved of the pressure of further email enquiries.

Nevertheless, the SDT on the facts of the case had found exceptional circumstances. It was not a carefully planned act of dishonesty, but was rather misconduct which was a response to the pressure experienced from the respondent’s colleague’s enquiries. The action of creating and backdating the document had lasted a very short period of time and was in effect a momentary lapse of judgement in an otherwise unblemished legal career.

It was appropriate for the respondent to be suspended from practice for 12 months, to be suspended for 24 months. That decision reflected the length of time it had taken to bring the matter to the SDT, during which the respondent had been issued with a practising certificate by the applicant free from conditions. In that time, the respondent had practised without any other matters relating to her conduct being raised by the applicant.

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

On 7 February, an Adjudication Panel resolved to intervene into the practice of Keeley Bentley at Bentley Law & Co Solicitors, from premises based at Unit 3, 1487 Melton Road, Queniborough LE7 3FP. The first date of attendance was 11 February.

The grounds for intervention were:

• Bentley had failed to comply with rules (paragraph 1(1)(c) of Schedule 1 – Part I to the Solicitors Act 1974).
• It was necessary to intervene to protect the interests of clients or former clients and any beneficiaries of any trust of which Bentley is or was a trustee (paragraph 1(1)(m) of Schedule 1 – Part I to the Solicitors Act 1974).

Claire Burrows of Shakespeare Martineau, SHMA SRA Interventions PO Box 18228, Birmingham B2 2HX (tel: 0300 247 2470, email: interventions@shma.co.uk) has been appointed to act as the intervention agent.