Litigation Disciplinary Tribunals 08/08/95

HARVEY MICHAEL ALLEN, 47, admitted 1982, practised as Allen Kandler & Co, London NW4, struck off. Allegations substantiated he misappropriated and wrongly used client money, failed to keep proper accounts and failed to comply with client instructions in relation to charge on property. Tribunal told Allen had misused mortgage funds and money deposited by a client, his handling of client funds had fallen far short of required standards and he had not acted with integrity, probity and complete trustworthiness. In submissions to tribunal on behalf of Allen he was described as a "naive and good natured man" who had been influenced by an "adamant and bombastic" client. Although he had acted stupidly he had derived no personal benefit from his actions and, however reprehensible his behaviour, he had not acted dishonestly. Tribunal said it was a sad case in which Allen had "seriously misused" client money. While it was clear he had a difficult personal life coupled with ill health, he had permitted himself to be gullible and behave with reckless naivete in a way which was wholly unacceptable.



GARY OSMOND JONES, 43, admitted 1978, practised in partnership as Marsh Ferriman & Cheale, Worthing, struck off and ordered to pay £1,500 costs. Allegations substantiated he had been jailed for 30 months for four offences of procuring a valuable security by deception. Tribunal told he was convicted at Middlesex Guildhall Crown Court on 18 April 1994 of charges involving applications for mortgage advances. Tribunal said he had been convicted of serious "mortgage fraud" offences and his behaviour could not be tolerated by the profession.



EMYR HUW JAMES, 42, admitted 1977, practised as James & Co, Chester, fined £1,000 and ordered to pay £929 costs. Allegations substantiated he failed to submit accountants report in respect of his practice as required, failed to reply to correspondence from Solicitors Complaints Bureau. Tribunal told James, who was declared bankrupt in October 1993, closed his office on 11 January 1993 and by virtue of closure a 'cease to hold' accountants report was due. No such report was filed. Tribunal said there was no indication of any shortfall on client account or that any client had suffered loss. They inferred from the information before them that James had clearly been in financial difficulty, but that did not

excuse him from complying with the requirements of his profession.