Addleshaw Goddard partners fined £5,000 over ‘misdescribed’ disbursements

  • Print
  • Comments (6)

Readers' comments (6)

  • I am not balming the two Ks, but I find this kind of report maddening. I am assuming it is based in large part on information released by the SDT, SRA or similar? If this is so, they want to have a good hard think about why they are communicating the outcome and how they are doing it. The profession has an interest in understanding professional misconduct. They need to understand what the lawyers did. An opaque reference to misdescribing disbursements and a well intentioned distancing from allegations of dishonesty just doesn't cut it. An opportunity to educate is lost each time a disciplinary decision is obfuscated.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • When the story states that clients were not affected, how can this be when the 'mis-described' disbursements were charged to clients? Clearly then the clients were 'affected' in some way.
    Also, to say Addleshaws 'was not implicated' is disingenuous - that may be so in terms of the hearing, but in the real world of course the firm is implicated in the behaviour of its partners.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • if they did nothing wrong why were they fined?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I agree with Richard Moorhead - we really do need some detail as to what went wrong here. There must be a lot of lawyers out there who are wondering if they are inadvertently getting something wrong.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The SDT aims to post decisions to its web site at any point up to 7 weeks after the hearing. The database of decisions (which is searchable now) is at:

    http://www.solicitorstribunal.org.uk/

    at the foot of the home page. I expect the misdescription was putting the disbursements above the line rather than below where such third party charges should appear so as to make clear such charges are not profit related or some variation on the disbursement/secret profit issue. These breaches and prosecutions arise from the SRA's theme related investigation into such issues.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • So, whatever the conduct was, it apparently bore no reflection on the integrity of the two partners, the disbursements were properly incurred and chargeable to the clients concerned, there was no allegation that either Peters or Wilson had been dishonestly involved, neither sought or obtained any personal gain and no clients were even affected, let alone disadvantaged.

    But nonetheless, a hefty £5,000 fine each for what, based on the foregoing analysis must have been an asinine and inconsequential administrative error. Am I missing something? This is pathetic. Has the SRA and SDT got nothing better to do?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Mandatory

Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (6)