SRA removes both 80-year-old solicitor and “dishonest” trainee from profession


SRA: Firm withheld legal aid money for years

The Solicitors Regulation Authority has removed from the profession two people at opposite ends of their careers – an 80-year-old solicitor who held unpaid disbursements in his office account, and a trainee solicitor who used client money to try and hide her mistakes.

Alan Thompson accepted a rebuke and undertook to remove himself from the roll of solicitors under a regulatory settlement agreement struck with the SRA.

Mr Thompson was a partner at south London firm Cook Taylor for 43 years, before retiring in 2013. A 2SRA investigation found that the firm had, since at least 2001, routinely been holding legal aid monies in relation to unpaid disbursements in office account – sometimes for years.

A minimum cash shortage of £53,634.79 was identified in his firm’s accounts in respect of this money. “The effect was to bolster the firm’s financial cash flow,” the agreement noted. The SRA shut down the firm in November 2016.

As a partner, Mr Thompson had responsibility for ensuring compliance with the accounts rules in place at the time, and for the effective management of the firm.

Mr Thompson admitted breaching the accounts rules by not transferring the money to client account within the prescribed timescale, and by not having appropriate systems and controls in place to ensure the proper treatment of client money.

Accordingly, he failed to run the business of the firm or carry out his role in the firm effectively in breach of the Code of Conduct.

The SRA said that, in deciding a rebuke was proportionate, it took into account that Mr Thompson retired in 2013, was 80 years of age and “in poor health”, and has no intention of practising as a solicitor in the future.

Meanwhile, the SRA has made Holly Johnson of Denton, Manchester subject to a section 43 order, which bans a non-solicitor from working in an SRA-regulated practice without its permission.

She began working as a trainee solicitor with Cheadle firm Priority Law in July 2015, but was dismissed 17 months later after being found to have used money that the firm was holding for a client to cover up mistakes that she had made on five separate matters, and then changed the matter name to try and conceal the payment requests she made.

The SRA said this conduct was dishonest. In addition to the section 43 order, she was rebuked and ordered to pay a fine of £2,000, the highest sanction the SRA can hand out short of sending a case to a disciplinary tribunal.

The regulator said: “It is not known whether Miss Johnson is currently working at a SRA regulated practice.”




    Readers Comments

  • Richard says:

    SRA should get it’s own house in order. Hey take millions from the public purse and yet refused on three occasions to regulate a law firm committing fraud against my wife.


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.

Reports

No larger firm can ignore the demands of innovation – that was the clear message from our most recent roundtable: “The law firm of the future”, sponsored by LexisNexis Enterprise Solutions. It comes in many forms, predominantly but not just technology, and is not simply a case of automating process. Expertise and process are not mutually exclusive.

Blog

20 September 2018
Simon McCrum

Why don’t lawyers do what you ask them to do?

Having been team leader, department head, division head and managing partner, I understand well the frustration (and anger) that managing partners and CEOs voice to me: “We’ve asked them a dozen times, but still they aren’t doing what we need!”

Read More