Litigation Disciplinary Tribunals 4/11/97

Keith Francis Carter, 63, admitted 1959, practising at material time on own account as Keith Carter and Co, London SW1 fined £1,000. He ceased practising in December 1996. Allegations substantiated that he failed to properly maintain written books of account and drew or permitted money to be drawn from client account in breach of accounting rules. Tribunal said case was a sad one. He had been badly let down by his cashier, bookkeeper and reporting accountant. However, he acknowledged he could not avoid responsibility. To his credit he had given prompt and detailed explanation to the Law Society. He had retired from practice after a long and unblemished career to face disciplinary proceedings and had been adjudicated bankrupt.

Jennifer Elaine Stanbury, 39, admitted 1986, practising at material time as Stanburys London SW11, reprimanded and ordered to pay £918 costs. Allegations substantiated that she failed to deliver an accountant's report and failed to produce a Cease to Hold Accountant report. Tribunal considered findings fell at lower end of scale. The difficulties she suffered in connection with her health were considered a mitigating factor. In view of her unfortunate financial position and the fact that she held only a very small amount of clients' money in client account at any one time the tribunal said that an application by her to the Law Society to waive the requirement for filing of these certificates might be entertained.

Alastair John Grahame Brown, 53, admitted 1977, practising at material time as consultant to Lancecrown Ltd, trading as Lancecrown Legal Services, Wood Green, suspended indefinitely. Allegations substantiated that he had, other than in accordance with the Solicitors Separate Business Code 1994, controlled, actively participated in, or operated a business which might properly be provided by a solicitor's practice, and which was not itself a solicitor's practice or multinational partnership; that he had continued to act as a solicitor when his own interests conflicted with those of his client; had taken, or attempted to take, unfair advantage of his client and was a party to the provision of inaccurate information to the Registry of Companies. Tribunal said his activities presented a catalogue of wrongdoing and that, coupled with a refusal to co-operate with his own professional body, he appeared not to appreciate the scale of his unbefitting conduct.