SDT: Deliberate and sustained dishonesty
A solicitor who deceived a convicted client into believing he had a practising certificate, took money to pursue an appeal and then did not do the work has been struck off.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) said Gavin Clarke’s conduct was “fundamentally incompatible with continued membership of the profession”.
This was despite mitigation which showed he had been going through a turbulent time in his life, including a period when he was homeless.
Mr Clarke, who qualified in 2003, had his practising certificate revoked on 31 January 2022 after he failed to renew it.
Soon after, ‘Person A’ contacted him about assisting her partner with an appeal against his criminal conviction.
Mr Clarke told Person A that he was a solicitor and that, although criminal appeal work was not his area of expertise, he had a group of barristers who could assist.
He later said a barrister named ‘Darren Zelazelason’ of Lincoln House Chambers in Manchester was handling the matter, when in fact no such person existed.
Between February and April 2022, Person A paid £4,525 into Mr Clarke’s personal bank account, which he said was mainly for counsel’s fees.
He told Person A that he had prepared and submitted an application for leave to appeal and sent her a photograph of a partially completed appeal form that described him as working at ‘GC Legal’, a firm that did not exist.
However, when Person A later contacted the Court of Appeal, she was informed that no application had been received.
Person A repeatedly asked Mr Clarke to provide evidence of the application or to refund the money; he did neither and was reported to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA).
Mr Clarke did not co-operate with the SRA but attended the tribunal hearing. He admitted the four allegations, namely that he had held himself out as a solicitor when he was not authorised to practise, obtained £4,525 from Person A and then failed to return it, and had held client monies personally rather than in a client account.
He put forward mitigation but accepted that he should be struck off.
Mr Clarke told the SDT that he had practised as a solicitor for approximately 19 years, primarily undertaking criminal legal aid work.
The misconduct occurred during a period in which he was experiencing “significant personal and professional difficulties”; his health deteriorated and he “experienced a decline in his ability to manage his professional and personal affairs”. These issues contributed to “impaired judgement and decision-making”.
He had also experienced “significant disruption to his living arrangements” and been homeless for a time, while health difficulties required hospital treatment and a period of rehabilitation. This in part explained his failure to respond to the SRA.
Last year, however, he undertook a successful programme of rehabilitation and was living in supported accommodation.
Mr Clarke also said he intended to make restitution and proposed a schedule of repayment of the £4,525 when his financial position allowed.
The SDT accepted that his mitigation, “including his explanations, acknowledgment of wrongdoing, and demonstration of genuine insight and remorse, was relevant and creditworthy”.
But they “did not negate the deliberate and sustained nature of the dishonesty, nor its impact on the client and public confidence in the profession”.
The SDT concluded that the conduct was “fundamentally incompatible with continued membership of the profession” and struck him off.
While the SRA was entitled to its costs, Mr Clarke was “effectively impecunious”, the SDT said, and decided to make no order.
Leave a Comment