Fine for solicitor who acted on both sides of property deal


SRA: Fine needed to deter others

A partner who acted for both sides of a property transaction where there was a conflict of interest has been fined by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA).

Stephen Vasey of Stoke firm Walters & Plaskitt acted for two clients where one of them relinquished the beneficial ownership of their property to the other.

“There was a conflict of their interests and no substantially common purpose in relation to the matter,” according to an SRA notice published yesterday.

“Mr Vasey did not have instructions from the client relinquishing their beneficial ownership and did not ensure the service he provided was competent. He failed to consider the individual needs, attributes, and circumstances of his clients.”

As well as acting where there was a conflict, the regulator found that Mr Vasey broke various rules, including not acting in the best interests of his client.

A financial penalty was the “appropriate and proportionate sanction”, the SRA went on – it would send a signal to the wider profession “with the aim of preventing similar behaviour by others”.

“The conduct was not found to be reckless but had the potential to cause significant loss and had a significant impact on the client. Mr Vasey had direct control and responsibility for the conduct.”

The SRA’s fining guidance led to a fine of £1,198, as 16% of his gross annual income, discounted by 5% to take account of his co-operation with its investigation.

Mr Vasey was also ordered to pay costs of £1,350.




    Readers Comments

  • Anonymous says:

    That poor partner (not excusing their cinduct) is taking home a great salary based innthe fine levied. Must have a hell of an accountant or a whopping dividend lol.

  • Pete Anderson says:

    This is embarrassing. A fine is no deterrent. Why not a ban or suspension like in Sport for say 12 months?


Leave a Comment

By clicking Submit you consent to Legal Futures storing your personal data and confirm you have read our Privacy Policy and section 5 of our Terms & Conditions which deals with user-generated content. All comments will be moderated before posting.

Required fields are marked *
Email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Blog


CMA guidance on unregulated legal services must be applauded but…

There is little doubt that, with a staggering 3,800 unregulated providers of such legal services, the recent CMA action and guidance was required.


The rise of the agent

We believe AI agents are going to represent the biggest change to the way in which the general public interact with professional services business for generations.


The lonely role of a COFA: sharing the burden of risk management

Compliance officers for finance and administration in law firms can often find themselves walking a solitary path. But what if we could create a collaborative culture of shared accountability?


Loading animation