Dear Sirs,

The details you hold for the subject solicitor are misleading. Your records show that he has been admitted since 1977 with no interruptions.

He was, in fact, struck off for lying to clients and stealing their money from 1982 to 2004, which is a rather important fact, do you not agree?

Moreover, upon his re admission in 2004 the SDT overlooked its own findings in the matter of the closure of Donnellan & Co, findings reference: 7299/1996, in which he was cited as holding out whilst unqualified and subject to an investigation into missing funds. One of the reasons for the closure of Donnellan & Co was their employment of Daultrey without having obtained permission and for allowing him to hold out while unqualified.

Mr Daultrey's clients have included convicted fraudsters whose interests he preferred over those of other clients while he was unlawfully holding out from two Mayfair solicitors' firms.

Are your own rules and regulations a complete joke?

Reply from the SRA

Dear Mr Bantock

Thank you for your email of 3 April 2008.

In regard to your first statement, I can confirm that our records are an accurate representation. However, I am unable to comment further in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998.

We have no record of Mr Daultrey ever working at Donnellan & Co.

I can confirm that Donnellan & Co was intervened on 23 February 1996.

The findings and order file 7299/1996 is a public record, though this is archived off-site. I am happy to request this information so that I can review the finding and order and will put in this request today.

If you require any further clarification, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely

My response

Dear

Thank you for your considered response.

Steven (Richard) Daultrey unlawfully held out to me as being an admitted solicitor from not only Donnellan & Co throughout 1995 to February 1996, but also in 1994 from the solicitors' firm of Francis Read, also in Mayfair. My reliance on his representations and those of his client, a convicted fraudster, cost me most dear.

Perhaps you will understand my being highly exercised by this matter, and being most vexed at Daultrey's restoration to The Roll, which does not account for his true and accurate credentials and his penchant for misleading clients.

My own case is now too aged for me to seek redress, for reasons I will not dwell upon herein. However, I would urge you to represent Mr Daultrey's past accurately and would be pleased to assist you in your research where possible. Were the option still open to me I would be suing Donnellan & Co and Francis Read, each of whom employed/admitted Daultrey without consent from The Law Society, permitting him to hold out to me under his own agenda and that of his fraudster client.

Interestingly, a search in Google for Steven Daultrey will provide a good starting point for your considerations.

Thank you again for responding.

Regards.

Yours sincerely,

Paul Bantock

The SRA's final response 06 May 2008

Dear Mr Bantock,

Re Our records for Steven Richard Daultrey

Thank you for your emails dated 3 and 29 April 2008 and your subsequent telephone call with Administrative Officer, on 2 May 2008. Having read through your emails and the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal's (SDT) Findings, reference 7299/1996,1 can confirm that our records are correct. As you have explained in your email dated 3 April 2008, Mr Daultrey was admitted to the Roll of solicitors in 1977, he was struck off in 1982 and restored to the Roll in 2004. Our database accurately reflects this information. As the regulatory body for solicitors, consumer protection is of utmost importance to us. However, it is not part of our role to recommend solicitors to members of the public. In restoring Mr Daultrey to the Roll, an investigation was carried out by our Investigations and Disciplinary Unit. Approval of his application to restore his name would not have been granted if it was considered inappropriate and/or disproportionate to both Tribunal's Findings. Details of struck off individuals and/or individuals who have had their names restored to the Roll are not currently published on the website. We are however committed to ensuring that this information is accessible. The functionalities of 'Find a solicitor' are currently under review. I have spoken with my colleague in our web team who has assured me they will consider your comments as part of the review. I note the difficulties you faced when dealing with Mr Daultrey and understand why you have brought this matter to my attention. As you have noted in your email dated 29 April 2008, the time frame in which you are able to seek redress has lapsed. The Legal Complaints Service (who deals with complaints against solicitors) requires complaints to be brought to their attention either within six months of the end of the retainer, or within six months of the last correspondence from the solicitor. Whichever is the latter. Therefore the only option left available to you should you change your mind and want to seek redress would be to take legal advice. I appreciate you may be disappointed with my response however I hope I have been able to clarify our position. Thank you for taking the time to bring your concerns to my attention.

Yours sincerely

???