SDT: Solicitor caused clients financial and emotional harm
A law firm partner has been struck off for fabricating documents to mislead the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) about his role in mismanaging a client’s personal injury trust.
David Banyon Crosby also caused a cash shortage of nearly £40,000 on the firm’s client account and misled its professional indemnity insurer.
Mr Crosby, who qualified in 1997, was one of two partners at East Sussex firm Crosby & Woods, which the SRA closed down in 2021. He held both compliance officer roles and was sole signatory on the bank accounts. He did not engage with the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) hearing.
He had acted in a claim for ‘Client A’ that led to the creation in 2013 of a personal injury trust, of which Mr Crosby was a co-trustee with the client’s son, containing the £76,000 damages.
Five years later, he transferred the money to the firm’s client account without telling the son. In 2020, he took £14,500 more in costs than had been agreed, which was only rectified three years later.
Mr Crosby claimed others in the firm had been handling the matter and provided the regulator with five letters he said had been sent to the client, and a file review document, that all indicated this.
But the SDT found he had fabricated them and was indeed the fee-earner with conduct of the matter.
Separately, the SRA’s investigation had found a shortage of nearly £40,000 on client account caused by Mr Crosby transferring monies for costs to the office bank account without notifying four separate clients of the costs incurred. Only £6,360 had been returned.
In renewing the firm’s insurance in February 2021, Mr Crosby said the two partners worked full-time, when his partner was actually part-time, and that the firm had a positive net worth of £147,000 for the 2019 financial year, when in fact liabilities exceeded assets by £287,000.
Mr Crosby stated to the SRA that he viewed his colleague was a full-time partner because he was available to the firm on a full-time basis if the need arose.
The tribunal found both statements to be misleading.
Deciding sanction, the SDT said Mr Crosby was “motivated by his desire to avoid regulatory sanction, which was the reason for his dishonesty about his role in acting for Client A. Further, he was motivated by financial gain”.
Mr Crosby had caused “financial and emotional harm to his clients”; it was only due to the SRA investigation that some clients discovered what had happened.
“Mr Crosby’s misconduct was aggravated by the multiple findings of dishonesty, conduct which was deliberate, calculated and repeated over a period of time.
“He had abused his position as a solicitor with access to client funds, which he had withdrawn from client accounts in circumstances where he knew that he was not entitled to take those monies. He had fabricated documents in order to try to conceal his wrongdoing.”
A strike-off was “the only appropriate and proportionate sanction”.
The SRA sought costs of £38,355 but the SDT reduced these to £26,000 as the claim amounted to an hourly rate for preparing and presenting the case of £335. The tribunal determined that an hourly rate of £200 was reasonable.
Leave a Comment