SRA: Rebukes were proportionate outcomes
An experienced partner who failed to give a divorce client competent advice, leading to costs orders against the client, herself and her firm, has been rebuked.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has also rebuked a solicitor who failed to pass on cash given to him by a client to pay for disbursements.
Karen Margaret Wishart, who qualified in 1987, is one of two partners and the head of family law at Runcorn firm Silverman Livermore. The conduct occurred while she represented ‘Mr V’ in relation to financial remedy proceedings.
She admitted failing to deal with the matter “in a timely and competent manner”, such that there were significant delays and a “persistent failure” to engage in the proceedings. This led to the adverse costs orders, which she then failed to discharge promptly.
The SRA said Ms Wishart also did not raise concerns about Mr V’s mental capacity early enough following her instruction in the matter and delayed transferring the client file to Mr V’s new solicitors.
This all damaged public trust, and breached the rules on acting in the best interests of the client and providing a competent and timely service.
In mitigation, Ms Wishart said that, at the time, she was “experiencing very difficult personal and professional circumstances which may have affected her judgement and conduct”.
Further, all the costs orders have since been paid in full while Mr V was not charged for any work done by the firm.
Ms Wishart added that she has co-operated with the SRA throughout the investigation and did not have any prior regulatory history. “We consider that there is a low risk of repetition,” the regulator said.
A rebuke was appropriate given that her conduct was serious and reckless. “Some public sanction is therefore required to uphold public confidence in the delivery of legal services.”
Separately, the SRA has rebuked Paul Stephen Hirst, who at the time worked at HBW Law in Barnsley, for accepting £300 in cash from clients on account of disbursements and not paying into client account for “a number of weeks, during which period the client account was deficient”.
“A lower sanction is not appropriate given Mr Hirst’s lack of regard for the sanctity of client money and his apparent lack of insight into the impropriety of his conduct,” the SRA said.
A more serious sanction was not proportionate, it went on, because Mr Hirst – who by coincidence also qualified in 1987 – made the firm aware of the cash payment after his dismissal and sent a cheque to account for the money.
There was “no allegation that this formed a pattern of behaviour” and again the risk of repetition was “low”, the SRA said. There had also been “no lasting significant harm” to the client.
Ms Wishart was ordered to pay the SRA costs of £600, and Mr Hirst £1,350.
Leave a Comment