SRA: Solicitor responded slowly to requests for information
A solicitor responsible for multiple rule breaches – including a shortage in client account – has been fined £20,150 by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA).
A sole practitioner working through Mid-Wales firm Evans Roberts, Bryn Roberts was first investigated after a report to the regulator about his handling of an estate and delays in its administration.
The SRA said this week that it contacted him three times in 2021 and 2022 and eventually had to issue a statutory production notice due to his “slow response for information”.
Even then, Mr Roberts only sent a partial response and so the SRA commenced a forensic investigation into his firm.
This found a client account shortage of £30,850 that lasted for almost three years and was replaced four months after discovery, that no client account reconciliations had been completed, and potential client debit balances totalling £1,520.
Between September 2023 and May 2024, the SRA received a further six complaints about his handling of client matters, including one from the Legal Ombudsman.
The SRA began a second forensic investigation, during which Mr Roberts failed to provide “satisfactory explanations for his conduct on the six client matters”.
Further, the firm’s accountant’s report for the year to 31 March 2023 was qualified but the solicitor had not submitted it to the SRA within six months, as required.
He also did not comply with an undertaking or act in the best interests of clients – though the SRA notice was not clear, this appeared to relate to a failure to register charges and transfers, and to protect interests in the interim. He “misfiled” client files as well.
The SRA said he had shown “a reckless disregard to the risk of harm and his regulatory obligations” and only took remedial action when prompted.
Any lesser sanction than a fine “would not provide a credible deterrent to Mr Robert, and others”, it said.
The nature of the misconduct by Bryn Roberts would typically lead to a referral to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal; the notice did not explain why the SRA considered a fine sufficient but the sanctions suggests it considered his actions did not merit a penalty of more than its own fining limit of £25,000.
In setting the fine at 81% of his annual gross income, the SRA said it took into account Mr Roberts’ lack of urgency to rectify errors when they came to light, and his lack of cooperation with the Legal Ombudsman and the SRA. There were no mitigating factors.
He was also ordered to pay costs of £1,350.