SDT: Finely balanced decision
A solicitor suspended indefinitely in 2012 for failing to produce accounts after his law firm closed can return to the roll, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) has decided.
It said Andrew Reeves, who worked in a bank after leaving the profession, “now had a stable personal life” and “proper control of his financial situation”.
The tribunal heard that Mr Reeves, who qualified in 1986, was a sole practitioner at JW Reeves & Co, which closed in 2009.
He appeared before the SDT in 2011 for failing to deliver the firm’s last four accountants’ reports, not keeping his books of accounts properly written up or reconciling client account, failing to co-operate with the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) and failing to comply with an SRA adjudicator’s order to pay a client £1,700 in compensation and refund £1,760 in fees.
Mr Reeves admitted the allegations, which he said were due to his young son’s serious illness, which required “many hospital visits and lengthy surgical procedures”. While he failed to deliver the reports, he had kept all the necessary documents to prepare accounts.
He was fined £750 and ordered to pay costs of £3,500. The tribunal further ordered that, unless Mr Reeves provided the missing accountants’ reports by January 2012, he would be suspended for an indefinite period. He failed to provide them.
Since his suspension, Mr Reeves told the tribunal he has been working for a bank, dealing with recoveries.
He had represented a few former clients in court hearings, acting as a McKenzie Friend, but “was also given a right of audience in order to present their cases by the presiding judge”.
He said he had had informal discussions with contacts in law firms about job offers, but he had not wanted to apply for positions while still suspended.
Counsel for Mr Reeves argued that he did not “present any risk to the public” and the termination of his suspension “would not adversely affect the reputation of the legal profession”. Any “residual concern” could be dealt with by conditions on his practising certificate.
At the time of the misconduct, he was dealing with “multiple competing crises” in his life. As well as his son’s illness, he had “severe financial difficulties”, eventually leading to his bankruptcy in 2013, and his marriage broke down.
However, Mr Reeves was now “in a financially sound position” and remained working at a bank. He had “no plans to work as a sole practitioner ever again”.
Opposing his application to return to the roll, counsel for the SRA said Mr Reeves had “not made it clear what his intentions were as regards practising as a solicitor” and “failed to provide evidence of any up-to-date knowledge or training”.
The tribunal said it was now unrealistic to expect him to deliver the missing accountants’ reports.
Although the decision as to whether to terminate the solicitor’s suspension was “finely balanced”, The SDT “had much sympathy” with Mr Reeve’s situation at the time and said he “now had a stable personal life” and “proper control of his financial situation”.
The SDT granted his application, subject to conditions that he does not work as a sole practitioner, partner in a law firm, compliance officer, hold client money or act as a signatory to client account.
Additionally, within six months, he must complete 16 hours of in-person CPD, including a litigation update, a Civil Procedure Rules update, and an update on the SRA’s Standards and Regulations, to be completed to the satisfaction of the SRA.
He was ordered to pay costs of £2,260.
SRA right to object