Solicitor struck off for deception over money that was never missing

SDT: Drew adverse inference from solicitor’s failure to give evidence

A solicitor who complained to his bank about a missing transfer of £189,000 has been struck off because the money was never there and he faked various documents to back up his case.

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) said James Alexander Howard’s motivation was avoiding having to tell his then partner, Charlotte Archer, that he did not have the funds to contribute towards buying a house together.

“The harm caused to Ms Archer had been plain from her evidence before the tribunal,” the SDT said.

“She had clearly found it distressing to give evidence, and the tribunal had no doubt that she had been harmed financially and emotionally by Mr Howard’s deception.”

The SDT heard that Mr Howard, admitted in 2000, worked for Penningtons Manches Cooper from July 2014 to June 2020.

Mr Howard complained to the Co-operative Bank in March 2019 that it had failed to make a transfer of over £189,400 from his account, which he claimed he had instructed it to do. He said he was worried about what had happened to the money, which he said was needed to complete on a house purchase.

But he had never given such an instruction and did not have more than minimal balances in his accounts.

The SDT did not believe his explanation that he thought his family had put the money into his account.

The tribunal found that the solicitor faked a letter purporting to be from the bank to show that he had the £189,400 in his account. He created “up to four false emails” in May 2019 “which purported to show correspondence” with the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) about the money.

He faked another letter from the bank in September 2019, which stated that the bank was in contact with the FCA and the transfer would take place in 14 days. Mr Howard created a fake statement of account showing he had the money.

He contacted a consumer journalist at The Daily Telegraph, sending her two forged letters, who later approached the bank about what had happened.

He went on to forge “up to 16 misleading emails” which “purported to show correspondence with the bank which had not taken place”, following it up with “up to six false emails”, in October and November 2019, which “purported to show correspondence with the Financial Ombudsman”.

The SDT said Mr Howard’s “widespread plan of deception involving multiple organisations” lasted almost a year.

“In perpetuating this deceit he had also sought to deceive the bank, the FCA, his firm and the Financial Ombudsman.”

Penningtons had investigated what was happening and given Mr Howard a final warning – during this and also the SDT hearing, he produced a supposed confession from his brother that he had falsified letters from the Co-op. He left the firm two months later.

The SDT noted that there was “little detail” in the confession and Mr Howard had not called his brother to give evidence.

Though it involved events outside of his professional life, the SDT said “these were sustained and carefully planned acts of dishonesty, which clearly fell within the regulator’s remit, notwithstanding that the ultimate target of the deception was his partner”.

The SDT found that Mr Howard had admitted to a bank investigator that he had falsified documents but denied doing so during his disciplinary proceedings.

It preferred the investigator’s evidence, which was supported by contemporaneous notes and was subject to cross-examination. Mr Howard did not give evidence at the hearing and instead made his case in his closing argument.

The SDT drew an adverse inference from his failure to give evidence on oath and have it tested in cross-examination.

He was struck off and ordered to pay £19,700 in costs.

    Readers Comments

  • Charanjit Singh Tathgar says:

    Live by the sword. Die by the sword. Good riddance. Too many cheating Lawyers/Solicitors on the bench.

  • Stephen Hardy says:

    It is so obvious to me, that we are now living in a world where each person is out for themselves. This seems to be happening more and more. A sick, selfish society, where the likes of the solicitor mentioned in this article, commit such acts in order to satisfy their own greed, and because they are purely selfish. A lawyer – someone who is supposed to be representing the law – actually breaking the law. What a joke. I can see why perhaps the suicide rate is going up. Decent people, probably do not want to be living in a world, where there are the likes of him. It is people like this solicitor, who are contributing to making this world a horrible, disgusting place to live. I think we are on a rapid downward spiral. I would call it a tsunami. We are going further and further into the pits. It is just going to get worse and worse. I see no end in sight, quite frankly. The solicitor mentioned in this article is an absolute disgrace. Commiting a fraudulent act, then going to the lengths of sending bogus emails, and saying he thought his family had deposited the money into his account. The people presiding over this case obviously saw through his lies and deception. Did he really think he was going to get away with this, and insult people’s intelligence? I understand from the article that he was looking to purchase a property with his partner. A just hope this lady has the common sense – if she hasn’t already – to move away from this man. Who on earth, in their right mind, would want to be associated with an individual, who has behaved in this way?

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.


Will solicitors finally be fans of transparency now?

Since the introduction of the SRA’s transparency rules in December 2018, I have been an advocate for law firms going further then the regulatory essentials.

A two-point plan to halve the size of the SRA

I have joked for many years that you could halve the size (and therefore cost) of the Solicitors Regulation Authority overnight by banning both client account and sole practitioners.

Key cyber and data security questions to ask a legal IT provider

One of the growing priorities that law firms face when considering a legal technology provider is cyber and data security, such as their responsibilities and cyber incident management.

Loading animation