Estate: Solicitor faced conflict of interest
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) has warned solicitors of the dangers of acting for family members after fining one who preferred his wife in the distribution of an estate.
Though ultimately all the beneficiaries received what they were due, the actions of Antony Davies “served as a reminder to the profession to exercise great care and caution when acting in a legal capacity for family members”, the tribunal said.
“To do so creates several risks, including potential conflicts of interest, and compromising professional judgment.”
Mr Davies, 65, qualified in 1984 and at the time in 2006 was the joint executor of his late mother-in-law’s will with his sister-in-law (‘Person B’) – he had also written the will some years earlier.
Both she and her sister (Person C), Mr Davies’s wife until 2019, were each to receive a quarter share of the estate. There were four other beneficiaries.
Person B agreed that Mr Davies’s now-defunct firm, North Yorkshire firm Spencer Davies, should be instructed to administer the estate and in late 2006 – before probate had been granted – he made two advance payments totalling £39,000 to himself and his wife jointly.
He did not disclose these to Person B, who only discovered them in 2021 when she received draft estate accounts, following a complaint to the Legal Ombudsman about Mr Davies’s delay in finalising the estate.
The first distributions to the other beneficiaries were only made after probate was granted in April 2007.
In a regulatory settlement agreement between the Solicitors Regulation Authority and Mr Davies, the solicitor accepted that he put his own interests and those of his wife before those of his client and co-executor, and the other beneficiaries.
This compromised his independence and both his and the profession’s reputation, and lacked integrity.
He also admitted acting where there was a conflict of interest; in addition to his various roles, he was also the registered keeper of a vehicle purchased with funds from the estate and involved in a remortgage of his then matrimonial home, for which he and his wife had instructed Spencer Davies.
The agreement said Mr Davies “utilised his professional position and his position of trust to prioritise the interests of Person C and, therefore, his own”.
In mitigation, the solicitor pointed out that the other beneficiaries received initial £39,000 payments in April 2007 and there was no risk of loss to the estate.
He said Person B had told him she did not want to be concerned with the day-to-day administration of the estate, while his late completion of the accounts led to the ombudsman imposing a financial penalty and him also having to pay another firm to complete them.
The SDT found the agreed fine of £7,501 was “a reasonable and proportionate sanction to mark the seriousness of the misconduct, protect the public and maintain the reputation of the profession”.
“[Mr Davies] had admitted lack of integrity and there could be no doubt that his culpability for his conduct was high, and that his actions had had the potential to indirectly harm the reputation of the legal profession.
“However, the tribunal accepted that all beneficiaries ultimately received their full entitlements and that, while [he] and Person C may have received the advance payments before the other beneficiaries, the position was ultimately rectified.
“There had been no loss to any individual, and this conduct had been a single episode, in an otherwise unblemished career.”
Leave a Comment