High Court: No errors in SDT decision
A solicitor struck off for using client money to prop up his firm has failed in his appeal to the High Court.
Mr Justice MacDonald rejected [1] Harry Francis Cottam’s criticisms of the 2023 decision of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT), which has yet to be published pending the appeal.
“The tribunal delivered a comprehensive and closely reasoned decision,” he said.
It was not possible to identify a critical finding of fact which had no basis in the evidence, or misunderstood the evidence.
Further, it was not a case where the SDT’s findings could not reasonably be explained or justified.
Mr Cottam, who qualified in 1991, was the sole director at Birmingham firm Cottams Solicitors, which the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) shut down in October 2018. It found that there had been £175,000 of improper transfers from client to office account on two matters.
Before the SDT, Mr Cottam accepted that the transfers were improper and the tribunal was satisfied he had caused them to take place.
In reaching this decision, the SDT considered medical evidence that suggested he was not able to function to the extent he could have, causing the transfers to take place.
Mr Cottam had cited a 2015 fire – possibly arson – at the firm’s offices, which he owned, the losses on which insurance did not fully cover. He said this marked the start of the decline in the firm’s success and in his mental health.
MacDonald J recounted: “However, noting that the medical evidence concerning Mr Cottam’s mental health postdated the periods during which the relevant transfers had taken place and the fact that Mr Cottam continued to work throughout the relevant period, the tribunal was satisfied that, whilst the 2015 fire had had a devastating effect on him and acted to impair his judgment, there was no evidence to suggest he was unable to function.”
The SDT found Mr Cottam had lacked integrity and acted dishonestly “on the basis that he had used client monies to bolster the financial position of the firm”.
On appeal, Mr Cottam argued that the decision was contradictory and failed to correctly summarise and refer to relevant parts of the evidence he had provided, meaning that the tribunal’s findings were wrong.
MacDonald J noted the “wider context” that Mr Cottam did not dispute that the transfers were improper and that he was responsible for them by reason of running the firm.
It was also “plainly reasonable” for the SDT to conclude that there was no medical evidence to support the claim that a lack of ability to function was the reason the transfers took place.
He rejected the 11 specific complaints made about the decision, including its approach to Mr Cottam’s attempt to resile from admissions he made in interview with an SRA official on the grounds he had not been fit to be interviewed at that time.
There was “plainly no merit in that argument”, the judge said – Mr Cottam had told the official he was fit and well to be interviewed and that he did not have any medical conditions. He further admitted he was capable of declining to be interviewed but did not do so. None of the medical evidence supported his stance.
“Having regard to these matters, the tribunal was entitled to reject Mr Cottam’s contention that he had been emotional and had not been thinking about his answers whilst he was being interviewed.”
Mr Cottam did not appeal the sanction and so the court upheld the strike-off.
Ahead the substantive appeal, the judge had also refused an application by Mr Cottam for anonymity – he argued that being named in the judgment would have an adverse impact on his mental health.
The most recent medical evidence was from December 2023 and, MacDonald J said, “indicates, at the time it was compiled, a certain vulnerability on the part of Mr Cottam, in particular in relation to his involvement in the proceedings within the context of his identity as a solicitor being central to his psychological health”.
Mr Cottam told the court that being a solicitor struck off was to be “a social leper”.
But there was no updated medical evidence, while Mr Cottam confirmed that he was currently neither on medication nor receiving therapeutic input. He is also in employment.
MacDonald J said: “I was satisfied that it could not be said in this case that non-disclosure necessary to secure the proper administration of justice and in order to protect the interests of Mr Cottam.”