Signature: Solicitor initially refused to sign leases
A partner who witnessed two leases as having been signed in his presence when they had not has been struck off by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT).
Jack Anthony Medlicott admitting acting dishonestly by witnessing the leases at the request of the client, who was later jailed for 16 years for drugs and firearms offences.
Mr Medlicott, at the time a partner at Liverpool-based MSB Solicitors who qualified in 2014, said he helped Greater Manchester Police prosecute ‘Client A’, testifying in court that the leases had not been executed in the presence of ‘Person B’, the would-be tenant.
In a statement of agreed facts and outcome approved by the SDT, the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) said that “although the act of signing was brief”, Mr Medlicott did not correct the position until several months later.
“When first asked about these matters by the police, the respondent was untruthful, though it is accepted that he corrected this swiftly.”
The SRA said his “description of his actions in terms of manifest incompetence does not reflect the significance of his state of knowledge at the time he signed the leases.
“The respondent did not sign them due to incompetence. Rather he signed them deliberately, in the knowledge that Person B was not present and knowing that what he was signing was untrue.
In the circumstances, his conduct “would be considered dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people”.
The SRA said Mr Medlicott was instructed by Client A in connection with the purchase of a leasehold property in May 2021. Following completion, the solicitor was asked to draw up an underlease and obtain a licence to underlet from the local authority.
In April 2022, he was asked to amend the draft lease and also told that Client A would be taking a lease on a second property, about which Mr Medlicott had previously advised.
Mr Medlicott met Client A away from the office and gave him the two leases. Client A signed them, which the solicitor witnessed, and then asked him to confirm that he had witnessed Person B’s signatures.
Person B had not signed either and was not present.
Mr Medlicott “initially refused to do so”, but Client A asked him for a “favour” because Person B was “a friend” who would not have anyone who could witness his signature.
The solicitor relented, asking Client A “to get the leases signed as soon as possible by Person B and to return them to him”, which did not happen.
Instead, in August 2022, Client A called him and told him that he had been arrested and was on bail.
Client A asked the partner to assist him with another property sale and they met at a coffee shop because his bail conditions “restricted his movements to a certain radius from his home address”.
Mr Medlicott told him he could not sell property without the consent of the police.
“During the meeting on 5 August 2022, Client A raised the matter of the leases on Property A and Property B,” the SRA recounted. “Client A said to the respondent that he (the respondent) had been present when Person B signed the leases. The respondent reminded Client A that Person B had not been present. Client A reiterated his point.”
Later that month, police officers from Greater Manchester Police attended the offices of MSB and showed Mr Medlicott copies of the signed leases.
“The respondent initially told the police that he had not signed the leases. The respondent then apologised and told the police officers that he had, in fact, been present when the leases were signed by Client A and himself.”
In mitigation, Mr Medlicott said he executed the leases on the understanding that he would observe Person B’s signature via a video call or similar medium to allow him to ratify the position, although he acknowledged that this was not a valid method of execution.
He added that the leases were never formally completed.
But he did not argue that this justified a sanction other than strike-off.
The SRA said Mr Medlicott had “demonstrated remorse” and co-operated with its investigation.
The solicitor was struck off and ordered to pay costs of £15,000.