Land Registry: Solicitor said he acted with the best interests of his clients in mind
Two experienced partners who submitted paperwork to HM Land Registry (HMLR) with fake names to conceal the true owners of properties have been struck off.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) described Graeme Henry Taylor and Russell Harvey Shapiro’s misconduct as “a significant departure from the complete integrity, probity and trustworthiness expected of solicitors”.
At the time, both had been partners and respectively heads of the probate and conveyancing departments at North London law firm Gelbergs.
Both men qualified in 1984. Mr Taylor was a partner for many years before becoming a consultant and then leaving in 2018 to establish his own firm. This closed in 2022 when Mr Taylor retired due to ill health. Mr Shapiro was a partner throughout.
Mr Taylor had long represented the wealthy Taj family. When Mohammed Taj died in 2007, he left a portfolio of approximately 50 properties in East London in an estate valued for probate at approaching £19m gross and £9m net.
Gelbergs was instructed to act for the executors in the administration of the estate.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) alleged that the two solicitors acted on the transfer of seven properties from the estate into the names of ‘nominees’ that were, in fact, fictitious.
In all cases the identity of the true beneficial owner was not disclosed to HMLR and the seven properties were later transferred to one of the executors, Mohammed Sarfraz Ali, for no consideration. The probate value of these properties was £2.1m.
In all these transactions, Mr Taylor acted for the transferor and Mr Shapiro for the transferee.
The executors were removed by the court in 2020 and the beneficiaries later issued High Court proceedings against various parties including Mr Ali alleging breach of the self-dealing rule and breach of duty as an executor to avoid conflict and not to profit.
They sought, amongst other things, the rescission of various transfers of property from the deceased’s estate. The beneficiaries’ solicitors also reported Mr Taylor and Mr Shapiro to the SRA.
Mr Taylor explained that the aliases were used for the sole purpose of concealing the owners’ identity from the local authority to avoid abuses of the planning system committed by Mr Taj becoming a reason for future applications by a member of his family being rejected.
He said it was done with the full knowledge of the executors and the beneficiaries, and the correct information was given to HM Revenue & Customs. Mr Taylor insisted the properties were transferred for full and proper consideration.
Mr Taylor accepted before the SDT that he had deliberately misled HMLR, “albeit with the best interests of my clients in mind”, and accepted he should be struck off.
Mr Shapiro initially admitted to the SRA that he had been involved, but said he had not been dishonest.
Before the tribunal, however, he argued instead that Mr Taylor had sent out various documents to make it appear that Mr Shapiro had created and sent them. He said he was not involved in any of the transactions and did not submit any documents to HMLR.
The SDT found Mr Shapiro was not involved in the documentation but said there was no cause to doubt the “clear” statement he had made to the SRA that Mr Taylor had discussed using aliases with him and that he had acquiesced to it.
The SDT said the solicitors’ motivation was “to please and retain their clients and to avoid any difficulties with the local authority”.
It went on: “They were both partners of long standing in the firm and both were experienced enough to understand the nature of their misconduct and the consequences which flowed from them. They had knowingly provided, or acquiesced in the provision of, false information to the Land Registry.”
Their actions had compromised the fidelity of records held by HMLR and caused “significant” damage to the profession’s reputation as a result.
“The respondents’ conduct individually and collectively was a significant departure from the complete integrity, probity and trustworthiness expected of solicitors and the extent of the harm was reasonably and entirely foreseeable by them.”
It was “a matter of regret” that Mr Shapiro had allowed Mr Taylor to act as he did, given that he “gained nothing from doing so (other than that fees were earned in which he shared)”.
Both were struck off, with Mr Taylor ordered to pay £60,000 in costs and Mr Shapiro £10,000, to reflect Mr Taylor’s primary role in the scheme.
Leave a Comment