Solicitor convicted of blackmailing fellow director struck off


SDT: Offence “spoke for itself”

A solicitor convicted of blackmailing a fellow director with a threat to report him to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) in an attempt to negotiate an exit from their company has been struck off.

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) said that although it was a one-off event and Michael John Potter had shown “insight” into his misconduct, the nature of the offence “spoke for itself”.

“[His] misconduct could only be viewed as extremely serious, and this fact, together with the need to protect the reputation of the legal profession, required that strike off from the roll was the only appropriate sanction,” it said.

Mr Potter, who qualified in 1991, accepted the sanction in an agreed statement of facts and outcome with the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), which the tribunal approved.

It said he has not been employed as a solicitor since 1994, although did undertake an interim consultancy role at UK/US giant Eversheds Sutherland for a few months in 2021.

In September 2019, Mr Potter was appointed a director of 350 PPM Ltd – which incubates early-stage environmental businesses – alongside founding director Nicholas Dimmock. John Price joined a few months later as director of compliance and risk.

By spring 2020, the relationship between Mr Dimmock and the other two men had broken down, leading to negotiations about the terms of their exit.

In July 2021, during a recorded Zoom board meeting, Mr Potter and Mr Price argued either for a payout to leave or for an increase in their salaries, bonuses and benefits to stay, with the threat that they would report the company and Mr Dimmock to the FCA about alleged non-compliance.

Mr Potter said: “The board should know that in the event that we cannot agree a legal and proper way forward that is agreeable to all directors, and provide us with an indemnity for all actions and liabilities, we are fully prepared and absolutely ready to make the protected disclosures already notified, without further discussion and without further notice.”

This statement – which the evidence showed he and Mr Price had planned in advance of the meeting – led to the charge of blackmail.

Mr Potter pleaded not guilty and at a second trial in March 2023 – the first in 2022 having resulted in a hung jury – he was convicted of making “an unwarranted demand with menaces” with a view to gain.

He was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment, suspended for two years, and 240 hours of unpaid work.

In mitigation before the SDT, Mr Potter said he had an “exemplary” past record, and “long and successful career”.

He apologised for his actions and lack of judgment. He “recognises that his actions and judgment have fallen well below the exacting standard expected of a professional”.

Mr Potter highlighted some personal challenges he was facing at the time and how the conviction has taken a “significant toll” on him, mentally, physically and financially.

But Mr Potter did not argue that these amounted to reasons why he should not be struck off.

He also agreed to pay the SRA costs of £4,158.




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


Taking a compliance-driven approach to enhance PII renewal

Adopting a compliance-driven approach can significantly streamline and improve the professional indemnity insurance renewal process, as firms now begin to look forward to 2025.


Compliance in the age of technology

Does keeping up with best practice for your law firm in compliance, finance and risk management keep you awake at night? If so, you are not alone.


Continuing competence still in the SRA’s headlights

The SRA’s second annual assessment of continuing competence leaves lawyers and COLPs in little doubt that the regulatory spotlight is still firmly on whether skills and knowledge are being maintained.


Loading animation