For sale: Co-owner did not know property was on the market
A solicitor who sold a property he part-owned without the knowledge of his co-owner has been struck off.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) determined that Paul Lloyd Jones was “primarily motivated by his resentment towards GJ [Graeme Jones, the co-owner] given the historical backdrop”.
His secondary motivation “was the prospect of financial gain”.
Mr Jones qualified in 2003 and was at the time a senior equity partner, joint owner and head of commercial property of Cardiff and Bristol firm Insight Law. He left in 2020.
The SDT heard that the pair bought the house in Cardiff in 2006 as beneficial joint tenants. GJ paid a deposit of £13,000 and a mortgage of £121,500 was taken out in the solicitor’s sole name. It was remortgaged to pay for repairs, this time in both of their names.
GJ vacated the house in 2011, leaving Mr Jones to manage it and spend more money to make it fit for sale. GJ rejected suggestions of selling the house, or at least his share, in 2011 and 2015, but in 2017 Mr Jones sold it anyway – using Insight Law as his solicitors – and had the firm pay him the £167,500 proceeds.
GJ complained to the Solicitors Regulation Authority that he had never instructed Insight Law, was unaware the property had been sold until after the event and had received no proceeds from it.
Mr Jones argued that there was an agreement for the sale and that he had GJ’s authority to do it.
But the SDT rejected this. It found he had instructed Insight Law on the basis that he had authority to give instructions on behalf of GJ, when in fact he did not. This was dishonest.
Though text messages in 2017 indicated that GJ agreed in principle to sell, those sent by Mr Jones “were deliberately crafted so that GJ would not know that the property was in the process of being sold”.
Mr Jones accepted that he had not informed GJ that he had put the property on the market, that he had received and accepted an offer, and instructed the firm.
“Such conduct, the tribunal determined, was entirely inconsistent with someone acting on instructions with express authority. Further, it was also inconsistent with someone acting where they believed that they had instructions to do so.”
The SDT found also that Mr Jones had dishonestly failed to account to GJ for his share of the proceeds, which he attributed to GJ’s “fragile mental state”.
“It was wholly unclear as to how or why not telling GJ of the sale of the property would in some way worsen his mental health, particularly in circumstances where GJ was keen to sell the property,” it observed.
Mr Jones was dishonest too in texting GJ on the day of the sale indicating only that he was planning to sell it in the future.
The SDT found the solicitor’s explanations for the contents of his texts to be “wholly incredible” and that he had acted in breach of the trust placed in him by GJ.
“He was an extremely experienced property lawyer who fully understood the process of the conveyance. In contrast, GJ was vulnerable, suffering from mental health difficulties and had no knowledge of conveyancing processes.”
At the time of the hearing, GJ had still not received his share of the proceeds. The SDT dismissed Mr Jones’s efforts to blame others, including GJ, for what had happened.
It decided to strike off Mr Jones, who now lives in France, and ordered him to pay costs of £25,000.