Thompsons escapes SDT rap in miner claims scandal
Thompsons Solicitors has escaped referral to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) despite chief executive Stephen Cavalier being ’severely reprimanded’ by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) over the firm’s part in the cash for miners’ claims scandal.
Thompsons paid £10.9m from the settlements it secured for miner clients to unions as ’administrative charges’ when it procured cases under the Claims Handling Agreements (CHA) scheme set up by the Department of Trade and Industry in 1999.
The SRA said the firm had compromised its duty to act in the best interests of clients because until February 2005 it failed to advise claimants that they were under no duty to instruct Thompsons. However, the regulator found that it was not in the public interest for the six partners involved to appear before the SDT.
Following complaints to the firm, in 2005 and 2006 Thompsons contacted clients to give them the opportunity to withdraw from the CHA scheme. It refunded a total of £3.6m to 6,304 clients.
In total Thompsons was referred 23,500 miners’ cases from NUM Durham, the Durham Colliery Mechanics Trust and NUM South West.
The regulatory settlement names six partners involved in the scheme, including executive chair Geoff Shields, head of miners’ claims Anthony Patterson and head of the firm’s Newcastle office Robert Wood. Thompsons has been ordered to pay the SRA costs of £87,890.
A statement from Cavalier said: “Despite […] believing at the time that our approach was consistent with professional standards, we’ve accepted that our advice in the early period of the claims was deficient.
“We took substantial steps to mitigate our conduct, but as chief executive I’ve accepted responsibility on behalf of the firm for those deficiencies.”
Readers' comments (8)
Scep Tick | 25-Oct-2010 2:07 pm
A well-known firm pays over £10m to unions for referrals on an issue of national importance, then has to pay millions back to thousands of referred clients because it has ripped them off, its chief executive is disciplined by a professional body and the regulator says it's "not in the public interest" to put them before the SDT?
We're not talking about minor breaches here, but the failure to provide costs information, an ignorance of conflicts of interest and the imposition of unenforceable contingency fees. And the miners' litigation was gigantic, it affected hundreds of thousands and there were criminal charges brought against some solicitors involved.
In the name of all that is holy, how can it NOT be in the public interest to bring this before the SDT?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 25-Oct-2010 2:51 pm
it is ridiculous that the SRA completed its investigation more than a year ago (april 09) but only made it public last week. This is an investigation which has gone on for years and affected more than 20,000 consumers. Why is it all behind closed doors? So much for transparency in modern regulation.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
City Gent | 25-Oct-2010 3:00 pm
A chief executive called Mr Cavalier - how remarkably appropriate!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 26-Oct-2010 8:22 pm
Many firms very publically attended the SDT. The findings against Thompsons were the same.These firms were fined, suspended or struck off. Thompsons received one reprimand. Why?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 27-Oct-2010 6:33 pm
Apparently referral arrangements do not harm consumers
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
a j cummings | 28-Oct-2010 10:44 am
thompsons solicitors won more compensation for miners and their families than any other firm its no wonder the establishment hates them we applaud there commitment to the working class
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 31-Oct-2010 10:05 pm
Thompsons apparently made £123 million. They simply had more cases. Are they not the establishment?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
DC | 5-Nov-2010 8:40 pm
@ AJ Cummings. Applaud Thompsons' commitment to the working class? Really? Why should their comittment to inappropriately deducting £10.9M from the compensation due to the working class be applauded?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment