Drink-drive solicitor handed unusually high £10,000 fine


Police: Breathalysed solicitor 

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has handed out a £10,000 fine – reduced from £16,000 due to co-operation – to a solicitor convicted of drink driving, an unusually high figure for the offence.

Most cases of this nature attract fines of in the region of £2,000 but the regulator said that Piers King was reckless in driving when he knew he was over the limit.

Mr King is an associate at well-known London firm Farrer & Co and the figure was calculated as a percentage of his salary.

This is one of the first occasions that the SRA’s new fines guidance – which came into force in May 2023 and is linked to salary – has been detailed in relation to an individual.

A regulatory settlement agreement published last week said that, last February, after attending a rugby match, Mr King went to drive two miles back to his parents’ house. While turning a corner, he lost control of the vehicle and ended up on the verge of the road.

He was breathalysed and in April pleaded guilty to drink driving at Bath Magistrates’ Court. He was disqualified from driving for 22 months, fined £1,348 and ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £539 and prosecution costs of £85.

Mr King admitted he had damaged public trust in the profession as a result.

The SRA and Mr King agreed that a fine was appropriate “because a less serious sanction would not deter Mr King and others from similar behaviour in future”, the agreement said.

The nature of the misconduct was “more serious”, it added, “because Mr King intentionally decided to drive whilst under the influence of alcohol. This was reckless”.

They scored the nature and impact of the misconduct at three (more serious) and four (medium impact) – the highest combined score can be nine – indicating a broad penalty bracket of 16-49% of Mr King’s annual gross income.

The SRA acknowledged the solicitor’s mitigation: that he had “shown insight and remorse” and pleaded guilty at the first opportunity, promptly reported the matter to the SRA and co-operated fully with its investigation, and “no harm was caused to persons or property because of Mr King’s conduct”. Further, it was an isolated incident.

This had to be balanced against Mr King “having a high level of alcohol in his breath, which demonstrated a reckless disregard as to the risk of harm that could have been caused to others”.

This meant a basic penalty of £16,842, which is at the bottom of the bracket, discounted by 40% to £10,105 to reflect his co-operation.




    Readers Comments

  • Sober as a Judge says:

    No question this guy is v foolish, but receiving a huge additional penalty seems disproportionate?
    Other institutions should now be looking to penalise him, perhaps his local Rotary Club?

  • C3PO says:

    I don’t agree with fining people based on their income but if you’re going to do so at least do it properly. A fine of 49% of annual gross income was levied at circa £16k, equating to an annual salary of approximately £32k, which is less than Farrers pay their legal secretaries, let alone Associates with eight years PQE:

    https://www.glassdoor.co.uk/Salary/Farrer-and-Co-London-Salaries-EI_IE36896.0,13_IL.14,20_IM1035.htm#

    Good to see he cooperated, which presumably included providing details of his income.

  • MR DONALD R MACLEOD says:

    IMHO that is a grossly excessive penalty which the regulator has imposed. The courts expressed its view of the gravity of the offence in the penalty which it imposed and I do not think it should lie within the power of the regulator to impose a higher penalty. The regulator is there to deal with conduct which brings the profession into disrepute; IMO it has misdirected itself by identifying and having direct regard to material already taken into account by the court. This is away over the top and to my mind brings the regulator into disrepute since it seems to be saying, in effect, that the penalty imposed by the court was too small. The court must have known that the defendant was a solicitor who should have known better and presumably took that consideration into account in sentencing. It is not for the regulator to express, in effect, his view that the sentence of the court was too light. I do hope the defendant successfully appeals this excessive penalty.

  • Finbarr Phelan says:

    Bonkers absolutely bonkers!!!


Leave a Comment

By clicking Submit you consent to Legal Futures storing your personal data and confirm you have read our Privacy Policy and section 5 of our Terms & Conditions which deals with user-generated content. All comments will be moderated before posting.

Required fields are marked *
Email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Blog


Understanding vicarious trauma in the legal workplace

Vicarious trauma can happen to anyone who works with clients who have experienced trauma such as domestic or other violence, child abuse, sexual assault, torture or being a refugee.


Does your integrity extend far enough?

Simply telling a client they need to seek financial advice or offering them the business cards of three financial planners you know is NOT a referral.


Enhancing wellbeing: Strategies for a balanced work-life

Finding a balance between work and personal life has been a long-standing challenge for many professionals, particularly within high-pressure environments like the legal industry.


Loading animation