SDT: Solicitor was clearly dishonest
A solicitor who provided false information to a loan company in his capacity as a company director has been struck off.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) said that although Stuart Nuttall’s actions took place outside of legal practice, at a time when he was on the roll but did not have a practising certificate, they moved “beyond personal opprobrium and into professional misconduct”.
Separately he also failed to pay counsel fees that were owing.
The tribunal heard that Mr Nuttall, who qualified in 1997, obtained a corporate loan for Sentium Group, a now-dissolved private security company, in November 2018.
In doing so, he used a false company email address in a co-director’s name and impersonated the co-director on the phone so that he was named as a personal guarantor. He also electronically signed his colleague’s signature on the guarantor form too.
The co-director only discovered what had happened when he was advised of a default on the loan in January 2019.
In a letter to the loan company soon after, Mr Nuttall admitted he had wrongly taken out the loan and said he had assured the director that he would indemnify him against any costs arising. The co-director later complained to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA).
In deciding whether the conduct occurred outside the ambit of professional regulation, the SDT considered the High Court guidance and concluded that his conduct “crossed the threshold identified in Beckwith, moving beyond personal opprobrium and into professional misconduct”.
Mr Nuttall was dishonest, failed to act with integrity, and damaged public trust.
In 2021, Mr Nuttall had advised counsel to advise in conference, for which he was invoiced £1,440.
He failed to pay but, after being threatened with a report to the SRA, confirmed in writing that he had authorised payment and requested confirmation of receipt. In fact, no payment was received.
The SDT found he had been dishonest and lacked integrity in falsely representing to chambers that payment had been made.
Mr Nuttall also failed to co-operate with the SRA’s investigation for over a year, including not responding to a production notice issued under section 44B(1) of the Solicitors Act 1974.
He provided no medical evidence to support his assertion to the SRA that he had been too unwell to comply with the requests for information.
Mr Nuttall also failed to engage with the SDT proceedings but the tribunal went ahead in his absence.
His conduct was “clearly dishonest”, it said, and there were no exceptional circumstances justifying any lesser sanction other than a striking off.
Mr Nuttall was also ordered to pay costs of £7,603.
Leave a Comment