SDT: Property was clearly an asset
A solicitor who completed a “false and misleading” statement of means for a Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) hearing has been struck off.
Christopher James Fry denied acting dishonestly by failing to disclose information about the sale of a house in his sole name for £555,000, arguing that it was “not his money” because his ex-wife claimed it.
The SDT found “it was plain that the property was an asset”. It was not disputed that it had been sold around six months before Mr Fry’s first disciplinary hearing in 2023, which resulted in a £9,000 fine.
Given those facts, the tribunal had “no hesitation” in finding that Mr Fry had disposed of an asset worth over £1,000 within three years of completion of his statement of means.
The tribunal also found that Mr Fry failed to disclose that he had received £5,000 from the sale proceeds from the property, the rest of the money was still to distributed and he was claiming “the entirety” of it.
The solicitor’s misconduct was aggravated by the fact that his previous offence in 2023, providing “inaccurate and misleading information” in an indemnity insurance proposal form, was “similar in nature”.
The tribunal heard that Mr Fry, admitted in 2001, was previously sole owner, director and solicitor at Fry Law.
Ahead of the 2023 hearing, Mr Fry completed the statement of means, and signed a declaration that the content was “a true reflection of my current financial situation, in which no facts or details have been omitted”.
In response to the question in the statement: ‘Have you disposed of, or given as gifts, any assets which you owned worth in excess of £1,000 during the last three years?’, he answered, ‘no’.
As well as being fined at the 2023 hearing, Mr Fry was made subject to conditions preventing him from being the sole manager or owner of a law firm, the sole signatory to client or office account, or a compliance officer.
Further, he was ordered to pay costs of £35,000. But given his financial circumstances, the tribunal said they should only be payable with its leave.
At his latest tribunal hearing, the solicitor argued that he was “correct to determine that the proceeds of sale were not an asset until the courts decided that question”, which was not until a confidential divorce settlement was reached in 2024.
However, he accepted in his oral evidence that he had sold the property in December 2022 and received the £5,000 afterwards.
He also accepted that the balance of the sale proceeds had been retained in ex-wife’s solicitors’ client account, “and that both Mr Fry and his ex-wife were asserting that they were entitled to those monies”.
However, Mr Fry “considered that if he had claimed that the balance was an asset, that would be dishonest as it was not his money”.
The SDT described Mr Fry’s position as “incredible and wholly inconsistent”. It did not accept that he believed the property was not an asset or had not been disposed of: “The tribunal found that Mr Fry knew when answering ‘no’ to the question on the statement of means, that the answer was false and misleading.”
Mr Fry was “motivated by his own financial advantage” in claiming to be “of extremely limited means” in the 2023 proceedings.
This time the solicitor was struck off and ordered to pay almost £32,900 in costs, again not to be enforced without leave of the tribunal.
Mr Fry hit the headlines in 2017, when he successfully represented wheelchair user Doug Paulley at the Supreme Court after Mr Paulley had been denied entry to a bus because a mother was using it for her child in a pushchair.