Litigation Disciplinary Tribunals 01/04/97

Jeremy Paul Andrew Reichelt, 40, admitted 1983, practising as Jeremy Reichelt & White, Peckham, London SE15, suspended indefinitely and ordered to pay £917 costs. Allegations substantiated that he failed to deliver accountant's reports subject to conditions imposed on his practising certificate and/or an accountant's report confirming he had ceased to hold client funds. Tribunal told Reichelt was previously before it in May 1994 when he was fined £1,000 after substantiation of allegations that he failed to comply with direction of the assistant director of the Solicitors Complaints Bureau and failed to reply to letters from the bureau. Tribunal said that while he did not appear to have acted dishonestly Reichelt did appear to have abandoned all responsibility.

Paul Garland, 46, admitted 1977, practising at material times as Garland & Co, Gravesend, suspended for 12 months and ordered to pay £1,159 costs. Allegations substantiated that he failed to respond to letters from other solicitors and Solicitors Complaints Bureau, was guilty of unreasonable delay in the conduct of his professional business, failed to pay professional costs of a draftsman, failed promptly or not at all to return papers. Tribunal said Garland had failed to "grasp the nettle" in respect of matters complained of.

Michael Wright, financial services adviser for Messrs Robert Leach Palmer & Co, Cleveleys, from 1987 to 1994, banned from working for any further solicitors without written consent from the Law Society. Allegation substantiated that there had been substantial breaches of compliance with Solicitors' Investment Business Rules 1990. Wright had worked closely with Robert Westall Leach, a partner in the firm. But when Leach learned in 1994 that the firm was to be visited by a Law Society Investigation Accountant he had committed suicide. Tribunal said it appeared Leach had been using the financial services department as a vehicle for the dishonest use of client money. It was not represented that Wright was in any way complicit with that. However, he had held himself out to be a financial services expert, had been in charge of the department and had permitted a considerable number of breaches of the Investment Business Rules.