SRA: Serious harm caused to client
An experienced solicitor who failed to take action after medical reports showed his client had not been fit to plead guilty to 19 criminal charges has been fined £3,800.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) said the convictions were overturned four years after the failures by Oliver Arthur D’Sa, who qualified in 1984.
A notice published by the regulator said Mr D’Sa, a director of Leicester firm Oliver D’Sa, had represented client ‘KI’ since 2019. He was aware from the outset of KI’s diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (ASD).
In March 2020, KI instructed Mr D’Sa to represent him in relation to nine charges of theft, five charges of robbery, four counts of having an offensive weapon and one count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
The following month, KI pleaded guilty at an online hearing. Mr D’Sa was not present and had arranged for counsel to represent KI.
In June 2020, a report the solicitor had commissioned from a consultant forensic psychiatrist agreed with the diagnosis of ASD, finding KI presented with high levels of anxiety, suicidal ideation and features of learning disability.
Soon after, Mr D’Sa received a report from a chartered psychologist, which concluded that KI did not have the capacity to plead or instruct his solicitors, and would struggle to follow court proceedings.
Mr D’Sa put forward the findings to mitigate KI’s sentence but did not ask the court to set aside KI’s plea.
In October 2022, KI’s new solicitors appealed against the convictions on the basis that KI had not been fit to plead and his lawyers had failed in their representation of him.
The appeal succeeded 18 months later. The court found “a failure by [KI’s] lawyers to identify and act effectively in the light of their client’s difficulties”.
Mr D’Sa admitted various rule breaches, including the requirement to “consider and take account of your client’s attributes, needs and circumstances”.
In mitigation, the solicitor said he had “reflected on the events and his actions at the time. He has identified points where things could have gone differently and has altered his approach to subsequent clients and cases”.
He said he had no intention to cause harm. “His focus on ensuring all possible mitigation was identified and put forward on behalf of his client, sadly led to him overlooking the information about KI’s needs and capacity set out in the experts’ reports”.
Mr D’Sa had “identified a range of training for himself and his staff, to improve their understanding of best practice in representing clients with learning and mental health difficulties/disorders”.
The SRA said a fine was “the appropriate outcome” because of the serious harm caused to KI, who had criminal convictions on his record for four years.
It continued: “Mr D’Sa knew from the outset that KI was a vulnerable individual. From the end of June 2020, Mr D’Sa should have taken in to account the information in the experts’ reports about KI’s functioning.
“These made it plain that KI was more likely than other individuals to be dependent on information and advice presented to him by his solicitor.
“Mr D’Sa should have taken the information about this particular client’s vulnerability into account when formulating his advice, and in the way he communicated information and advice to KI…
“However, it represents an isolated case, set against a long career with no similar conduct concerns. Public protection does not require suspension or striking-off.”
Application of the SRA’s fining guidance led to a basic penalty of £5,440, reduced to £3,800 to reflects Mr D’Sa’s co-operation with the SRA, “his self-reflection and the changes in practice Mr D’Sa has put in place to improve his own and his staff’s representation of vulnerable individuals”.