SDT: Property lost value as a result of solicitor’s actions
A solicitor who acted as a deputy for 16 years and did little to protect his interests in that time has been suspended from practice for six months.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) said Elizabeth Forrest accepted the position of deputy “despite knowing that she did not have any relevant experience with which to exercise those functions responsibly”.
Ms Forrest, who qualified in 1995 and was a solicitor at Meikles Solicitors in County Durham at the time, acted as the deputy for a boy, ‘Client A’, from 2006 to 2022. She admitted failing to act in his best interests.
According to a statement of agreed facts and outcome put before the SDT, the case centred on a house worth £130,000 that was left to Client A when his father died in 1997. He was too young to look after the property, so it was listed at the Land Registry under the names of the two administrators of the boy’s father’s estate.
Administrator A took control of the house, renting it out for £695 per month.
The Court of Protection (CoP) appointed Ms Forrest as his deputy for property and financial affairs in 2006 and soon after she wrote to the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) to express concern that Administrator A may not be acting in Client A’s best interests.
The OPG replied that she should require the house be put into Client A’s name and consider putting the occupancy on a proper footing. Ms Forrest did neither.
In 2007, she sought further advice from the OPG on the basis that Administrator A was not responding; it said Ms Forrest may want to instruct counsel. She only did this in 2015, however, after a meeting with an OPG visitor.
During this period, she did not reply to correspondence from solicitors for Administrator A, her application to register a restriction on the property was refused, and she unaware that Administrator A had placed a charge on the property at the turn of 2012 for a £20,000 mortgage, until undertaking enquiries in 2015 at the OPG’s request.
After the OPG visit, Ms Forrest reported a potential negligence claim to her senior partner.
While there was occasional correspondence over the next seven years – and she finally placed the restriction in 2015 – little changed until the OPG made a random professional deputy assurance visit in 2022.
In September 2022, the firm reported Ms Forrest to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) over her management of the case and she left shortly afterwards. She then asked the OPG to remove her as the deputy on the basis that her failures had diminished the value of the property.
After an investigation, the OPG decided that her removal as the deputy was sufficient.
Throughout the period from 2006, Ms Forrest admitted also submitting annual reports to the OPG, which were signed with a statement of truth, knowing the contents were incomplete or inaccurate.
She said this was due to misunderstanding the questions to concern solely Client A’s care and welfare.
In other mitigation, she pointed to a lengthy period of ill-health in 2016, being constrained by the potential negligence claim – which was being overseen by others in the firm – and that she had self-reported to the senior partner and taken remedial actions in 2015.
The SDT agreed with the proposed six-month suspension. Ms Forrest “had been inactive and was responsible for the failure to take appropriate steps on Client A’s behalf”, and as a result had jeopardised Client A’s interests.
She failed to uphold public trust, and “did not act with the integrity, probity and trustworthiness expected of a solicitor” – but the SRA withdrew an allegation that she had been dishonest.
At the same time, Ms Forrest had admitted her failures to the OPG and co-operated with the SRA.
The SDT concluded: “A fixed period of six months was proportionate and in the interests of justice as it would give the respondent time to reflect fully on her shortcomings so that it would never be repeated in future, and care for her health.”
She was also ordered to pay costs of £16,800.