The solicitor, Nigel Guy De Laval Harvie, 73, (SRA ID 088574) of Flat 19 Ritchie Court, Oxford, Oxfordshire, started his career as a solicitor in 1966 and practiced under the style of Nigel Harvie Solicitor and retired in 2012.
The SRA received a complaint from a member of the public who knew a former client of Harvie’s, who died in 2010 at the age of 89, regarding his conduct towards her. Following investigations, the regulator referred the matter to the Tribunal.
It was alleged by the SRA that Harvie entered into a financial arrangement with Mrs S in 2005 without advising her to take independent advice, where his own interests conflicted and potentially conflicted with her interests.
It was found that a will was prepared by Harvie for the client in 2004, and she entered into a financial arrangement with Harvie.Harvie dealt with the administration of her estate when she died, which included the transfers of title to her property.
Harvie accepted that he entered the financial arrangement while not ensuring his client gained independent advice and that he placed himself in a position of conflict.
The SRA added that Harvie should not have proceeded with the transaction even if she had wanted to go ahead without the independent advice.
Regarding the conflict of interests between himself and Mrs S, Harvie stated that he had got it wrong and apologised. Harvie’s reason for not insisting on independent advice was that “she could withdraw at any time and it made life much simpler”.
Mr Ryan, the solicitor of Harvie, stated that Harvie had accepted that there had been misconduct, wrongdoing and mistakes regarding his involvement in the arrangement. However, Ryan claimed there was insufficient evidence that he took unfair advantage of the client.
Mr Ryan accepted that the client was vulnerable and the Tribunal accepted that while Mrs S gained benefit from being able to stay in her house, it was out of proportion as to what benefit Harvie or a connected third party gained.
The Tribunal, however, decided that he had used his position as a solicitor to take unfair advantage for himself or on behalf of a third party, and so both aspects of the allegation was proved to the required standard.
“A senior solicitor took unfair advantage of a vulnerable and very elderly lady and effectively deprived her estate of her house for a knockdown price,” it was added in the Tribunal’s judgement.
]It was heard that Harvie was disappointed in himself and did not look to go behind the Tribunal’s findings and accepted them fully.
It was stated: “The Respondent accepted the finding that he took unfair advantage but that was not his intention when he entered the financial arrangement.”
Mr Ryan accepted that the client was vulnerable and the Tribunal accepted that while Mrs S gained benefit from being able to stay in her house, it was out of proportion as to what benefit Harvie or a connected third party gained.
The Tribunal, however, decided that he had used his position as a solicitor to take unfair advantage for himself or on behalf of a third party, and so both aspects of the allegation was proved to the required standard.
“A senior solicitor took unfair advantage of a vulnerable and very elderly lady and effectively deprived her estate of her house for a knockdown price,” it was added in the Tribunal’s judgement.
It was heard that Harvie was disappointed in himself and did not look to go behind the Tribunal’s findings and accepted them fully.
It was stated: “The Respondent accepted the finding that he took unfair advantage but that was not his intention when he entered the financial arrangement.”
The judgment continued: “This was a sad end to an otherwise distinguished career for someone with an unblemished record. The Respondent was very proud of being a solicitor and his reputation was now tarnished,” it was stated in the hearing.
Harvie was fined £305,000, the largest fine ever recorded to a solicitor, which was to be paid within a year, where he was also ordered to pay costs totalling at £37,016.
Leave a comment