Back to Lawyers for your Business
Fraud; theft; duplicity; deception, conspiracy and betrayal.
How and why striking solicitors off the roll is a meaningless exercise,
and why the crooked solicitors and their crooked clients are laughing.
Update February 2007: The Law Society continues to re-invent itself. See: Consumer Complaints Service
|
Where to discover solicitors' credentials |
|
| Telephone the Law Society on: 0870 606 6575 or 0845 608 6565. and ask whether that solicitor has any conditions imposed on their practicing certificate. You could also check that they are a legitimate solicitor using the Law Society's search service: |
Solicitors Online |
|
The Law Society has recently started to make available online selected findings of the Solicitors' Disciplinary Tribunal. July 2006 |
Try also: |
|
The solicitors' Disciplinary Tribunal holds records of disciplinary action taken against solicitors and can provide a copy of the findings: 3rd Floor, Gate
House Tel: (020) 7329
4808 |
Solicitors; Disciplinary Tribunal |
| The Law Society Gazette is also searchable, but its database is not comprehensive. | Law Society Gazette |
The Law Society ignores its own damning findings and readmits a crooked lawyer, Steven Daultrey: News
In Bolton v. The Law Society 1 W.L.R. 512; [1994] 2 All E.R. 486, the Court of Appeal held:
"‘The second purpose [of the Tribunal's orders] is the most fundamental of all: to maintain the reputation of the solicitors' profession as one in which every member, of whatever standing, may be trusted to the ends of the earth. To maintain this reputation and sustain public confidence in the integrity of the profession it is often necessary that those guilty of serious lapses are not only expelled but denied re-admission…. A profession's most valuable asset is its collective reputation and the confidence which it inspires." What a joke. UJ
A selection of solicitors making the bad news to date: News Roundup
Which? issues 2004 Press Release
Thinking of retaining a solicitor for business, financial or investment matters? Read Lawyers for your Business first.
Consider also: Law Society Questions. January 2005
Solicitor Steven
Daultrey was struck off the roll in 1982 for lying to clients and stealing their
money. The Solicitors' Disciplinary Tribunal's (SDT) findings in the matter may
be opened here:
Solicitor Francis Read of 19-20 Grosvenor Street, London, knew Daultrey when he was working with or for another firm of solicitors in 1993. Francis Read felt that Daultrey had been wrongly or unfairly struck off, taken pity on him, giving him a position in his own firm. He provided Daultrey with his own offices and stationery on Francis Read letterhead, and allowed him to hold out as being a solicitor. Francis Read confirms as much, claiming to have obtained permission to employ him from the Law Society. He lied about obtaining permission, which carries a mandatory penalty of striking off, but he continues to practice regardless.
On the other hand, the Law Society denies all knowledge of ever having authorised Daultrey's re-employment in the solicitors' profession since his striking off in 1982. Not just once, but twice, by two different officers: The Law Society calls Francis Read a liar and and confirms it
According to the Solicitors' Disciplinary Tribunal and the Law Society's own rules it is a serious offence to employ or admit a solicitor who has been struck off. The SDT clearly states this in its recent annual report - where relevant sections are yellow highlighted - may be opened SDT Findings
Certainly, as far as Francis Read is concerned, Daultrey's striking off had little meaning. But what about the solicitors employing him prior to his joining Francis Read? It seems that Daultrey was able to move straight back into the profession, but this time as a shadowy entity who could either be a solicitor or not, depending on which status suited his purposes at any given time. At all times, however, the rules meant as little to him as they did to Francis Read.
It doesn't stop there. After his fraudulent charade at Francis Read's firm, Daultrey moved to the firm of Richard Donnellan - Donnellan & Co - of Bruton Street, Mayfair. Donnellan & Co was closed down amid a police investigation on 21 February 1996. Much later I obtained the SDT's findings in the Donnellan matter as well.
To read how solicitor Francis Read was negligent and breached his fiduciary duty, permitting his fraudulent clerk and their fraudulent client, Michael Turner, to indulge in fraud,
Here is an extract from the Gazette's reporting on the matter of Donnellan & Co:
| Richard Donnellan |
Admitted 1982 Application 7299/1996 Hearing, 7 October 1999; reasons, 23 November 1999 The SDT ordered the respondent, of 49 Spring St, Chipping Norton, Oxfordshire, who had practised on his own account, to be struck off the Roll on 7 October 1999 for unbefitting conduct, in that he had improperly withdrawn money from client account, contrary to rr.7 and 8 of the Solicitors Accounts Rules 1991; he had used client funds for the purposes of other clients and for his own purposes; he had misappropriated client funds; he had practised from an office that was not properly supervised, contrary to r.13 of the Practice Rules 1990; he had failed to pay professional agent’s fees as they fell due; he had failed to deliver an accountant’s report, contrary to s.34 of the Solicitors Act 1974; and he had employed or remunerated a person who had been struck off the Roll, (Steven Daultrey*) contrary to s.41(1) of that Act. The tribunal noted that £92,729 had been paid out by the compensation fund. A breach of s.41 attracted a mandatory penalty; but, apart from that breach, the tribunal was satisfied that the respondent was not fit to be a solicitor. The respondent was ordered to pay costs. * UJ comment. |
To open copies of the SDT's findings featuring Daultrey's involvement in the Donnellan matter, click here.
Clearly many solicitors are prepared to readmit their struck off brethren, and to take on their portfolio of clients as well, asking few if any questions. They can do this because the Law Society is ineffectual as a regulator, or because its first and overriding priority is to protect its members before the public at large.
I'll bet a dollar to a putrid haddock that The Law Society is even now trying to find ways of protecting Francis Read from scrutiny, as well as itself for its own abysmal handling of the Daultrey affair. Trust me - it will try to find a way to blame me for having been ripped off by these charlatans. Any new developments will be announced on the home page of this site.
The Times
December 15 1998
Preventing lawyers who have been struck off from practising is a tricky business, says Danny Lee
Crooked lawyers who keep working
A damning report on the discipline of dishonest and criminal practitioners broadcast on Channel 4's Dispatches earlier this month has led to a great deal of confusion.
No one at the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) will comment on the programme's claim that more than half of all solicitors found guilty of misusing clients' money have been allowed to continue practising. Barrie Marsh, the SDT president, speaking on the film, also seemed out of line with his own organisation when he said he was "amazed" that solicitors were not struck off for criminal offences of dishonesty.
Despite the peculiar silence of the SDT, the Law Society is surprisingly forthright. With both solicitors and lay people on its panel, the tribunal is independent of the Law Society, which, together with the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors, brings about 200 cases a year against offending practitioners. In 1997, out of 182 cases, 58 solicitors were struck off. David McNeill, the Law Society spokesman, says: "Our view is clear. Any solicitor who is guilty of dishonesty or a serious criminal offence should be struck off. We have been shocked by many of the findings of the SDT."
Dispatches looked at a sample of 200 solicitors most recently brought before the tribunal, of which 78 were found to have mishandled clients' money. Most remained on the roll of solicitors. Four cases were highlighted in the programme. One examined the tribunal that suspended Terence Mitchell from practising for 12 months after he was imprisoned for a £250,000 mortgage fraud. The Law Society then successfully appealed that the penalty was too lenient and though Mitchell was then struck off, he continues to work as a clerk. He was secretly filmed advising reporters who posed as clients without telling them that he was not a solicitor. "A solicitor who has been struck off is barred by the regulations from seeing clients and in the light of the programme we will be looking at all the issues raised," says Mr McNeill, who is, however, critical of the programme for blurring the boundaries between the Law Society and the SDT. He claims that Dispatches unfairly attacked the society for decisions that are in the tribunal's domain and cites the successful appeal to the High Court in the Mitchell case as proof of this, as well as creating a precedent that the SDT will have to follow.
He adds: "If one solicitor is continuing to practise who should have been struck off, that is a worry.
"Our regulations are very tough, but we do not make the final decisions. We are the prosecuting authority."
In another case the tribunal fined Tony Darnell who was was convicted of forgery in the Crown Court. The tribunal still did not strike him off the roll when he appeared before it, having disregarded a ruling that prevented his appearing as a solicitor in court. He then became a leading criminal practitioner in Stockport, but was eventually struck off after being convicted of drug-dealing and sentenced to 11 years in jail.
Further damaging the public image of solicitors, already tarnished by criticism of fees and the standard of service offered to clients, the affair is clearly creating animosity between the Law Society and the SDT. One society insider would like to see the tribunal thrown out of the society's premises so that the public gets the message that the two organisations are run separately.
In financial terms, though, the Solicitors' Indemnity Fund (SIF), an insurer for solicitors for client compensation claims, has more to lose than most through crooked practitioners. Sharon Bolton, the spokeswoman, says: "It is in everyone's interest that there is no dishonesty in the profession. To the extent that the numbers of claims against solicitors are high, we have an interest in reducing them."
She points out, however, that "the number of claims arising from dishonesty is not huge".
Between 1994 and 1998 only 6 per cent of claims by value against the fund involved the dishonesty of a partner in a practice. A further 1 per cent involved the dishonesty of an employed solicitor. The rest are to do with malpractice, such as negligence.
Despite these limited numbers, the SIF will, when it receives a claim, report any reasonable doubts about honesty to the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors. "Last year," Ms Bolton says, "we reported 93 claims to the OSS because we had a suspicion of dishonesty."
Most practitioners have an interest in seeing tough penalties meted out to crooks, who undermine public confidence. Indeed, it is solicitors who are being asked to pay ever greater amounts in indemnity premiums to cover claims by clients.
The Law Society is unequivocal. Mr McNeill says: "We would not want any rotten solicitor to have the impression that he or she can get away with it."
But so long as the SDT stays silent, there will be disquiet as practitioner and public confidence in the regulation of solicitors is weakened.
Come back soon to read
In Strictest Confidence
And still they sneak back into the "profession".