Solicitor struck off by SRA

A solicitor who worked at a Yorkshire firm has been struck off by the Solicitors Regulation Authority after failing to account for money, which the SRA found was “motivated by his own financial gain.”

The allegations against Ian Brill were heard at a Solicitors Regulation Authority tribunal and were in relation to Brill when he was in practice as a consultant at The Miah Solicitors, a firm which has offices in Leeds and Wetherby. The SRA also ruled he must pay costs of £14,000. Brill was added to the solicitors roll in 1977.

The SRA’s tribunal report states that Brill received payment for fees due to the firm from five clients, totalling £780, and failed to account for the money, breaching several SRA principles and rules.

The report continued: “Whilst conducting four matters on behalf of clients he failed to comply with court directions, prepared an inadequate court bundle, instructed Counsel late and prepared Wills which were defective in that they failed to give effect to and comply with his instructions.”

Brill also failed to create client ledgers or send bills of costs on his files, according to the SRA report.

On 19 March 2015, Mr Miah, a manager at the firm, received a telephone call from a client who complained about Brill’s conduct. As a result of that complaint, Miah reviewed files and client ledgers. The review showed that the Respondent had received cash payments from five clients totalling £780 which had not been paid to the Firm.

The review also showed that there were other issues with some of the Brill’s files, including failures to comply with court directions, failures to provide bills or other notification of costs and other file management issues.

Miah reported the matters to the SRA, who then undertook an inspection of the firm. A Forensic Investigation Officer inspected the Firm’s books of account and other documents, and having interviewed Brill and Miah, produced a report in May 2016.

The SRA tribunal report stated: “The Tribunal considered that the Respondent’s conduct had been motivated by his own financial gain. His actions were clearly planned; he had arranged surreptitious home visits and had attended with his wife, in order to conclude the matter and ask for cash payments.

“He had breached the trust placed in him by the Firm, who should have been able to trust that he would deal with client money in an appropriate and honest way. He was entirely culpable for his misconduct and was an experienced solicitor who knew the requirements in relation to client monies.

“His conduct fell well below the standards expected of a solicitor and had caused harm to the reputation of the profession, as well as financial losses for the Firm.”

It continued: “The Tribunal found that the Respondent knew that his conduct was in material breach of his obligation to protect the public and the reputation of the profession. In addition to the mitigation advanced in the letter dated 15 September 2016, the Tribunal noted that the Respondent had a previously unblemished record, and had shown insight into the admitted matters.”

The SRA tribunal was held earlier this month and was not attended by Brill. However, he submitted a mitigation letter stating he had experienced great difficulty in working with Miah.

In the letter, he accepted that his own accounting and administration was lacking, but maintained that the amounts of money involved “were de minimis and should be viewed against the background of the far larger sums he was owed by the Firm in salary and commission.”

Brill accepted that this did not excuse his behaviour, and accepted that his conduct in that regard had lacked integrity.