SDT questions why regulator's intervention was necessary

20 Jan 2020

An experienced commercial partner who continued acting for several developers and buyer companies for months after admitting to a client there was a conflict of interests, was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay £40,000 in costs.  

David Roberts continued to act when there was a “clear and obvious” conflict and the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) pointed out it was not the role of other solicitors to remind him of his obligations. 

However, the SDT said it was "difficult to understand" why the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) considered that an intervention was necessary in the circumstances. 

Roberts had already retired from legal practice by the time of the int...

Want to read on?

This article is part of our subscription-based access. Please pick one of the options below to continue.
Already registered? Login to access premium content

Single User

  • - 10 issues a year delivered to you
  • - Digital edition of the magazine
  • - Access to premium content
  • - Access to the SJ Archives
  • - Weekly email newsletter
  • - Access to the SJ community online
  • - Advanced search feature
  • - Online support
  • - Access to SJ app- coming soon!
  • - 6 special focuses per year
  • - Special offers on SJ and IICJ events

Corporate User

The Corporate IP Licence is tailored to your firm, making it the most cost effective way for the firm to access Solicitors Journal, and enables the firm to remain compliant with copyright and our Terms and Conditions. This gives you the ability to print and circulate articles within the firm.

To enquire about a Corporate IP Licence for your firm, please contact our Subscriptions Manager on george.miller@solicitorsjournal.com.