Probate: Executors not told of money being moved to office account
A veteran solicitor who admitted billing clients for work he had not done to avoid his firm exceeding its overdraft has been struck off.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) heard that, in one case, Mark Grenville Davies continued to bill an estate of which he was the executor where no work had been done since 2016.
The tribunal noted his poor health but “this had not been advanced as an exceptional circumstance sufficient to make striking off a disproportionate sanction”.
In a statement of agreed facts and outcome with Mr Davies – who is 69 and qualified in 1985 – the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) said he reported himself to the regulator in June 2023 after ill-health left him unable to manage Bennett Richmond in County Durham, of which he was the sole owner.
He told the SRA’s investigating officer on her first visit that he had been “improperly billing on client matters when the firm’s overdraft facility was nearing its limit of £85,000”.
The officer found £13,740 of transfers from client to office account for work purportedly done on five different matters between June 2022 to April 2023. He did not replace the money.
Mr Davies also admitted raising 47 invoices on four probate matters over a period of more than 10 years between October 2012 and May 2023 for a total of over £47,000, without providing “invoices, nor any other notification of costs, to the executors”.
As a result, the executors could not challenge the bills.
He accepted that the value of the invoices was “not equitable to the work undertaken” and by raising them he was able to transfer money from client to office account. Beneficiaries lost out as a result.
Mr Davies further admitted overcharging two estates where he was the executor by nearly £10,000 each, even though no work had been done on one of them since 2016 – indeed, it was a low-value estate and was insolvent from that year.
He told the SRA “that, in general, when he prepared invoices, there was a large amount of ‘guesswork’ in calculating the amount, and that the amount may also include some future work”.
The solicitor was a partner at the firm from 2000 but by 2019 was the only one left and the firm became a recognised sole practice. He had tried and failed to sell the firm and admitted to the SDT that he was “not suited” to running a practice and holding the compliance roles.
In non-agreed mitigation, Mr Davies told the SRA that, by the time of its closure, Bennett Richmond had had a presence in the town for over a century.
“Staff had been long serving and loyal and in doing what he did [he] felt obligations towards the firm, its staff and clients. He had good relations with many clients established over years. These were significant drivers in attempting to keep the firm going in the face of financial reality.
“[He] fully understands that he should not have acted the way he did notwithstanding this now. His personal earnings from the firm were very modest in keeping with a firm that was not functioning well, and his actions were never motivated by personal financial gain.”
Mr Davies said he felt “deep shame and profound remorse” for what he had done. “He finds it difficult to articulate the acute sense of failure that hangs over him and that will be with him for life.”
He was struck off. The SDT made no order for costs, agreed by the parties on the basis that Mr Davies had been declared bankrupt.