Solicitor who lied to SRA is struck off

The SRA has successfully appealed against a decision of the SDT that a solicitor should be suspended for three years rather than struck off for a breach of the rules involving dishonesty.

A SRA spokesman said Millard Spence set up his own practice in July 2007, but two months later, in September 2007, his professional indemnity insurance ran out.

His PC was later cancelled by the SRA following non-payment of the fee for 2007-08. The SRA intervened in the practice in July 2008.

“The tribunal found Spence guilty of making dishonest and misleading statements to the SRA, including informing the SRA he was at home rather than acting as an advocate in a criminal case when his firm was inspected in February 2008,” the spokesman said.

“It also found Spence had continued to practise without a practising certificate or professional indemnity insurance, failed to contact the SRA investigators, failed to comply with the SRA’s accounts rules and failed to pay the insurance fee for the assigned risks pool.”

The SRA argued at the High Court that suspending Spence was unduly lenient as the case did not fall within the category of exceptional cases where a finding of dishonesty did not warrant a solicitor being struck off.

At an ex tempore hearing reported on Lawtel, Lord Justice Pitchford and Mr Justice Foskett said that in the absence of any error of law a sentencing decision of the tribunal, which was expert and informed, should be respected.

Pitchford LJ and Foskett J said the most serious aspect of dishonesty in the case was Spence’s decision to deliberately mislead the SRA investigators at the same time as failing to put his practice in order.

It was right to say that no client funds had been misappropriated at that time but it was undoubtedly an aggravating factor that he had enlisted another solicitor to lie on his behalf to divert the attention of the investigators.

The judges said that while personal mitigation was important it was equally important to decide whether it was a momentary lapse in an exemplary career or whether it warranted Spence being struck off, considering the importance of the message that any penalty would give.

Although they understood why the tribunal did not regard it to be the most serious case of dishonesty, it was a case of calculated dishonesty and that conduct required the ultimate sanction.

The judges said the tribunal appeared to treat the repeated lies to the SRA as a less culpable form of dishonesty than misappropriating client funds but that was wrong. It was difficult to see a higher risk to the interest of Spence’s clients than the effect of him continuing to practice without insurance or a certificate.

The judges concluded that the order was clearly inappropriate and replaced it with an order that struck off Spence.

David Middleton, executive director at the SRA, said it was important to bring the appeal and maintain the principle that a finding of dishonesty “will almost invariably indicate that a solicitor is a risk to the public and therefore that strike off is the appropriate order to be made.

“We do not believe that substantial fining powers are a substitute for strike off when the risk to the public is substantial.

“As the High Court said, practising without a PC or insurance exposed his clients to an enormous risk, and during our investigations, Spence repeatedly lied to us and persuaded another solicitor to lie to us too. This is not how solicitors should behave.”