Milne to face SDT over stalking conviction


SRA: Referral to tribunal

Controversial solicitor Andrew Milne is to face the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) following his conviction earlier this year for stalking.

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) made the announcement yesterday, having put Mr Milne under a condition in February that he “may not act as a solicitor without the supervision of a solicitor approved by the SRA for this purpose”.

This aimed to control, rather than sanction, Mr Milne’s practice while fuller investigations were ongoing.

It has now decided to refer him to the SDT. A notice published yesterday said: “Between March 2024 and August 2024, Andrew Milne pursued a course of conduct which amounted to the stalking of Mr Daniel Cloake, contrary to section 2A (1) and (4) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and was convicted of that offence on 10 February 2026 at Stratford Magistrates Court.

“The allegations are subject to a hearing before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal and are as yet unproven.”

Mr Milne was given a seven-year restraining order, a 24-month community order and ordered to complete 300 hours of unpaid work and 20 rehabilitation activity days.

The solicitor, who runs London firm Andrew Milne & Co, has also come under increasing scrutiny for his acquisition of multiple freeholds in various parts of Northern England and attempts to sell them to the leaseholders for what Bolton West MP Phil Brickell said in Parliament earlier this year were “massively inflated prices – sometimes as much as £25,000”.

Condemning the tactics he said the solicitor used to persuade people to buy, he accused the SRA of doing “nothing to stop” Mr Milne.

Last month, the SRA imposed a further condition on Mr Milne’s current practising certificate banning him from practising as a solicitor in real property law. “This includes both litigation and transactional work,” it stressed.




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Email address will not be published.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


Is clients’ use of AI destroying legal privilege?

Much has been written about the risks of lawyers misusing AI. However, in my view, the greater challenge lies elsewhere: the routine use of AI by clients themselves.


Does the Lloyd review mark the end of the Legal Services Act?

The Legal Services Board often generates eye-rolls and irritation from the leaders of the frontline regulators it oversees and of the representative bodies attached to them.


A familiar story?

There is no doubt that the rising cost of clinical negligence claims deserves attention. However, the system’s true cost driver is often not the claim itself.


Loading animation