Solicitor Michael George Anderson, born in 1960, practising under the style of Andersons from early 2003 had to foot a fine of £10,500 as well as suffering an 18 month ban from acting as a solicitor. The ban was valid from the 30th of September. He practised as a solicitor on his own account via the firm Andersons in Suffolk as of April 2003.
The Solicitor Disciplinary Tribunal, which was heard on the 30th of September, stated that Mr Anderson: “…displayed a very serious ignorance of the responsibilities of a solicitor across a wide range of those responsibilities including the requirements that clients should have independent advice before being allowed to make a loan to the solicitor…”
While solving a range of alleged breaches submitted by the Solicitor’s Regulation Authority (SRA), the hearing focused primarily on the breach incurred by Mr Anderson borrowing from four clients.
The SRA alleged a conflict of interest arose on seven occasions of which loans ranging from £1,000 to £13,000 were taken from clients by Mr Anderson, and none of whom were advised to take independent legal advice prior to doing so. Also, it was heard that none of the loans were evidenced in writing.
The lawyer in question admitted the allegation and he stated he was simply unaware of regulations regarding loans from clients. He also understood that ignorance was not a defence.
With one of the clients in particular, evidence was submitted by the defence to illustrate that the loan was offered by the client to the solicitor due to their long relationship. Also, funds had been repaid bar £11,000 to one client, however that client was content.
In its closing remarks the tribunal concluded: “In taking the loans the Respondent [ Anderson] had allowed his independence to be compromised; had failed to act in the best interests of the clients and failed to behave in a way that maintained the trust the public placed in him and in the provision of legal services…”
Other breaches by the solicitor included, failure to remedy breaches promptly on discovery, not returning client money to clients promptly when necessary and client money withdrawals equating to around £5,000 that were transferred outside the permitted circumstances.
A breach of honesty or recklessness was not found, however, so a striking off was not found to be necessary. Although, the ignorance of the breach still attracted a severe sanction to send a message to the industry.
Leave a comment