Litigation Disciplinary Tribunals 28/04/98

Malcolm James Cameron, 39, admitted 1983, practising at material times in partnership as Hall Cameron & Co, Radway Green, Cheshire, struck off and ordered to pay costs of £2,973. Allegations substantiated that he used proceeds of an estate the administration of which he was handling, for improper purposes. He was convicted at Chester Crown Court on 3 October 1997 of making false instrument and theft and sentenced to nine months imprisonment. Tribunal said it was a sad case and that even if he had not intended to act dishonestly, his foolishness was immeasurable. He had been punished by imposition of prison sentence but it took a serious view of a solicitor who had not exercised the probity, integrity and trustworthiness expected of a member of the profession.

Sukhvinder Singh Bamrah, 40, admitted 1982, practising at material time on own account as Singh & Garland-Wells, Hounslow, fined £5,000 and ordered to pay costs of £1,447. Allegations substantiated that, inter alia, he failed to reply to correspondence from other solicitors and from Solicitors Complaints Bureau and practised as solicitor without a current practising certificate. Tribunal expressed sympathy for circumstances in which he found himself and gave him credit for being a useful and esteemed member of his community. However, it could not ignore the fact that his failures had been considerable and had occurred over a period of time. It noted that practising without a certificate was a most serious matter but accepted that the two periods in question were short and that the situation had arisen because of error or lack of judgement on his part rather than a deliberate attempt to flout requirements of the law.

David William Inman, 61, admitted 1963, at material time practising on own account as David Inman & Co, Hinckley, fined £1,000 and ordered to pay costs of £624. Allegations substantiated that he failed to reply promptly or at all to correspondence received from Solicitors Complaints Bureau and/or Office for Supervision of Solicitors and had been guilty of unreasonable delay in conduct of professional business. Tribunal accepted that he had not wilfully refused to answer correspondence and that he had suffered from depression. It supported the Law Society's condition on his practising certificate preventing him from practising as sole principal.