Daultrey SDT

Home Page

About this site

Articles

Alerts

Cases

Cases Pending

Contact

Site Updates

Site Map (test)

Warning

Similar Sites

Information for Victims

Research

Latest News

News Roundup

Utilities

Restricted Area

Hosted by:

Notition

An application dated the 15th January 1982 was duly made on behalf of The Law Society by David Michael MacMichael of No. 72/73/74 Duke Street, Chelmsford, Essex, solicitor, that Steven Richard Daultrey, of No. 120 Selwyn Avenue, Highams Park, London E4., solicitor, might be required to answer the allegations contained in the affidavit which accompanied the application and that such Order might be made as the Tribunal should think right. The allegations made were that the respondent had: (1) failed to comply with the Solicitors' Accounts Rules 1975 in that he notwithstanding the provisions of Rule 8 of the said Rules drew out of Client account money other than that permitted by Rule 7 of the said Rules; (2) been guilty of conduct unbefitting a solicitor in that he (a) utilised money held and received by him on behalf of certain clients for the purposes of other clients; (b) made untruthful and misleading statements to his clients, The Tribunal heard the application at the Court Room No. 60 Carey Street, London WC2, on the 24th March 1982, when the said David Michael MacMichael, a consultant in the firm of Leonard Gray & Co., of No. 72/73/74 Duke Street, Chelmsford, Essex, solicitors, appeared for the applicant and Mr G Hooper of Counsel appeared for the respondent. The evidence before the Tribunal consisted of the admissions of the respondent and is set out in paragraphs 1 to 5 inclusive hereunder: 1. The respondent was admitted a solicitor on the 1st April 1977 and at all material times carried on practice in partnership under the style of "Montague Daultrey" ("the firm") at Nos. 445/7 High Road, Woodford Green, Essex. The partnership was terminated on the 10th December 1980. On the 26th March 1981 Mr Calvert an assistant to Mr Harold Greenhaigh FCA, The Law Society's Investigation Accountant, attending at the firm"s office at No. 445/7 High Road, Woodford Green, to inspect the firm's books of account, pursuant to notice duly given under the Solicitor's Accounts Rules 1975 and the Solicitor's Trust Accounts Rules 1975. 2. Mr Calvert investigated the firm's accounts as at the 28th February 1981 and he found that they were in order. He further found that the books of the firm were currently in compliance with the Solicitor's Accounts Rules; however, he found certain irregularities which had occurred in a matter dealt with by the respondent. 3. The firm, in the person of the respondent, had acted for Mr A J Pearce in connection with a property transaction. On the 26th November 1980 the relevant account in the Client's ledger showed a credit balance of £44,620.61. It was then charged with a Client account payment of £22,642.05 in respect of a telegraphic transfer for the account of a Mrs M P Wicks, thereby reducing the credit balance on the account to £21,978.56. The Tribunal were told that the respondent held a Power of Attorney on behalf of Mr and Mrs Wicks who had moved to America and urgently wanted the proceeds of sale of their house here for the purchase of a house in that country. Unfortunately, this Power of Attorney was defective and the purchasers of Mr & Mrs Wick's house would not complete. The respondent had then used monies belonging to another client, Mr Pearce, a personal friend, to pay Mr and Mrs Wicks. In order to conceal the improper payment the respondent had instructed the firm's bookkeeper to make a false entry charging it to Mr Pearce's account. The cash shortage of £22,642.05 was eliminated on the 15th December 1980 following a transfer from Office bank account of £3,932.25, together with the introduction of funds totalling £18,709.80 from the personal resources of Mr Montague, a partner in the firm. 4. In May 1978 the respondent commenced acting for a Mr Kerry Harris who was claiming a sum of money by way of commission from his former employers. The respondent conducted the matter properly until October 1979 but thereafter took no steps in the matter. In August 1980 in response to an enquiry from Mr Kerry Harris the respondent told him that he had negotiated terms of settlement which Mr Kerry Harris found acceptable. The respondent had not in fact concluded any negotiations but in pursuance of the deception which he had practised upon his client he wrote to him a letter on the 6th August 1980 enclosing a cheque for £250.00 which he described as "the first part payment received". The respondent had obtained the £250.00 by extracting that sum from a Building Society account in the joint names of his partner, Mr Montague and himself.

5. In November 1979 the respondent commenced proceedings on behalf of a client of the firm, Mr Jarman, for the recovery of £3,000. By January 1980 a Defence had been delivered but thereafter the respondent did nothing to forward the proceedings and when in October 1980 Mr Jarman enquired as to the position the respondent told Mr Jarman that he had signed judgement and was expecting the balance of the judgement debt to be paid shortly. Pursuant-to this untruth he handed Mr Jarman a cheque for £250.00 "on account". Once again the respondent has utilised the joint Building Society account in the name of his partner and himself. 6. On behalf of the respondent it was submitted that he was a young lawyer, aged 29, with considerable academic ability. At the age of 25, almost immediately after his admission, he had entered into partnership with Mr Montague. The practice had thrived; there were soon three partners and a staff of fourteen. Unfortunately, the respondent's experience did not equip him to cope with the rapidly expanding practice and to shoulder the responsibilities involved. His father, an alcoholic, occasioned both the respondent and his mother considerable distress; his fiancee had broken off their engagement; he had let matters slide. He had used funds held in a joint account with his partner Mr Montague in order to finance the fictions upon which had had embarked; he had made no concealment of the fact that he had done so. The respondent was now employed as an assistant solicitor by a firm who had full knowledge of his background and wanted to continue to employ him. He hoped that he would be allowed to continue as an assistant solicitor, gaining now the practical experience which would have stood him in good stead previously and to transfer in due course to the Bar. The Tribunal FIND the allegations to have substantiated. This is a somewhat sad case but the respondent has deliberately misapplied monies and has been guilty of deceit and in all the circumstances there is, in the Tribunal's view, only one appropriate course open to them and they ORDER that the name of the respondent Steven Richard Daultrey, of 120 Selwyn Avenue, Highams Park, London Ek, be struck off the Roll of Solicitors of the Supreme Court and that he do pay to the applicant the applicant's costs of and incidental to this application and enquiry including the costs of the, accountant employed by the Law Society to inspect the firm's books of account, such costs to be taxed by one of the Taxing Masters of the Supreme Court.