Merlyn Huw Lloyd Morgan, admitted 1980, struck off 1990, refused restoration to the roll. Morgan, who practised material times in Stratford-upon-Avon, struck off following 14 allegations of mis conduct including delay of conduct of client affairs, failure to carry out terms of retainer, failure to deal promptly with correspondence of Solicitors Com plaints Bureau, failure to exercise reasonable care and skill in conduct of client affairs. At time of his striking off Tribunal said it was clear Morgan’s office had been run “in a state of chaos” and that public interest had to be protected from a solicitor who did not properly conduct his own affairs. Morgan appealed but his appeal was dismissed.
David Philip Goulding, 59, admitted 1965, practising at material time as David Goulding Stourbridge, West Midlands, struck off. Allegations substantiated he failed to maintain proper accounts, wrongly drew and used client money. Tribunal told that as result of Goulding’s activities 61 applications had been made to the Compensation Fund in respect of which £524,174 had been paid out and four potential claims remained. Intervention costs paid out were £59,322 and the total sum recovered had been £140,002. Tribunal said Goulding had acted dishonestly and that his actions had tarnished the good reputation of the profession.
Allegations also substantiated against Melanie Louise Chance, a salaried partner with David Goulding (see above), that she failed to maintain properly written accounts and wrongly drew client money. However, no order made against her. Tribunal said she bore no responsibility for Goulding’s nefarious dealings and his dishonesty. It stressed previous concern at the alacrity with which inexperienced solicitors accepted offers of salaried partnership, and urged young solicitors not to enter into any partnership arrangement without taking formal independent advice and without ensuring that prospective partners’ accounts had been vetted.
Readers' comments (2)
David Goulding | 2-Apr-2013 1:17 pm
I ceased to act as a solicitor in 1992, although this report is dated 1997. Accounts were in fact always properly maintained, and there would have been no case to answer if I had not willingly produced these, as I believe the accounts were mislaid after they had been taken from my possession. If all money due to the firm had been collected there would have been no deficit at all. I also willingly took the whole brunt of the blame, which could, and perhaps should have been apportioned. I have certainly earned a remission since then!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
MHL Morgan | 14-Apr-2013 8:09 am
The tribunal agreed to reinstate me if I did 2 years training to update me on the current state of the law.
It was accepted that no dishonesty had been involved in my original discipline. that
The Master of the Rolls had said in a case after mine that where there is no dishonesty a strike off was inappropriate as, as he said, what then is the further penalty for being dishonesty!
Unfortunately those advising me had appealled to the Lord Chief Justice who was a less benign being!
I subsequently achieved qualification as a Family Mediator and the civil service who authorised by full AIM rating said that in their opinion my understanding and presentation was of such high standard that I should lecture nationally on the subject.
I then had a diabetic stroke and I could not even write or use a mouse.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment