SDT: Solicitor caused harm to both firm and clients
An assistant solicitor whose failure to comply with an undertaking in a property transaction cost his firm’s insurer £440,000 has been fined £5,500.
As a result of Kerr Clement’s misconduct, Suffolk firm Burnett Barker saw its insurance premium rise, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) heard.
Mr Clement, who qualified in 2009, breached undertakings given in two matters in 2018 – one to register a charge at both Companies House and HM Land Registry (HMLR) over a pub, and the other to register a security over a property in South London.
An agreed statement of facts and outcome with the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), approved by the SDT, said Companies House rejected the pub charge because of errors in the application and advised that it could then only register the charge on instruction of an order of court under the Companies Act.
But Mr Clement failed to do this and also did not register the charge at HMLR.
He said he had been hoping to register the charge against an amended area of the premises following a subsequent transfer of some of the land, “thus avoiding additional work, keeping costs down and avoiding dealing with the Land Registry and the bank bore than might otherwise be necessary to keep things neat”.
Instead, Burnett Barker had to obtain the court order at its own expense. It sacked Mr Clement in October 2019 over this, a decision upheld on appeal.
On the other property, the failure to comply with the undertaking to register a charge at HMLR eventually led the lender having to pay the seller £440,000. This was recouped from the firm’s insurer, causing its premium to rise.
In mitigation, Mr Clement said these were “inadvertent” mistakes made when he had a very busy workload and insufficient administrative support.
Having lost his job, he had found it difficult to work since the publication of the referral to the SDT.
In agreeing with the recommended fine, the SDT said Mr Clement had caused harm “to his clients, the firm, and to the reputation of the profession”.
It noted too that he had cooperated fully with the SRA, and had made admissions at the earliest opportunity.
Given Mr Clement’s financial position, it agreed the fine should be reduced and that £5,500 was proportionate in all the circumstances.
He was also ordered to pay costs of £1,350.
Leave a Comment