Sign for Steve Thomas & Co in Llangwm (Pic: Google Streetview)

EXCLUSIVE

A PEMBROKESHIRE solicitor has been struck off the roll by the Solicitor’s Disciplinary Tribunal for dishonestly transferring money from the estates of deceased clients to his firm’s office account.

Edgar Stephen George Thomas of Steve Thomas & Co Solicitors, Deerland Chambers, Llangwm, Haverfordwest attended a hearing in London between March 14-16. Thomas represented himself.

The Solicitors Regulation Authority was represented by Mr Edward Levey, a barrister from Fountain Court Chambers, London.

The sum identified as missing from client’s accounts was £144,326.25

ALLEGATION

The allegations against Thomas were that he failed to provide adequate or accurate information to clients about likely overall costs at the outset of matters or throughout the conduct of them where required, and thereby breached rules and transferred sums from his Client Account to his Office Account in respect of his fees otherwise than in accordance with Rule 19 of the Solicitors’ Accounts Rules 1998

The tribunal also head that on or about 16 June 2014, Thomas provided misleading information to a client as to the reasons for delay in distributing the proceeds of an estate.

APPLICATION TO ADJOURN

At the start of the hearing Thomas said he wanted an adjournment as he had not seen all the documents. He accepted that the application to adjourn should have been made at an earlier stage, however he only became aware of this on reading the Tribunal’s practice note on adjournments, which he had read for the first time that morning. The Respondent accepted what was contained in the note, and asked the Tribunal to exercise its discretion in allowing an adjournment. Further, in view of the length of time of these proceedings, there was no real urgency. He no longer held a practising certificate, and had not worked since July 2014. He had not held himself out to be a solicitor, and did not hold any client money. In the circumstances, there would be no prejudice in adjourning the proceedings.

Mr Levey submitted that the position was entirely unsatisfactory, and that the case should proceed. The Respondent had failed to file and serve his own documents, despite numerous directions requiring him to do so, which left the Applicant in the position of opening and presenting its case, without knowing what the Respondent’s case was. Mr Levey did not accept that there was anything further to be disclosed to the Respondent, and submitted that his application to adjourn on the basis of lack of disclosure was total obfuscation and an attempt to avoid dealing with the issues.

The Respondent told the Tribunal he had been arrested by Dyfed-Powys police in relation to these matters, and remained on police bail. He was due to return to the police station in May 2016. He understood that the police were still carrying out enquiries, but that they could attend to arrest him at any time before his bail to return date. Given that, the possibility of criminal proceedings was imminent.

THE LOCAL PAPERS

The Respondent explained that he lived in a small rural community, and that the outcome of the proceedings was sure to make the local papers. If the allegations against him were found proved, then his community would see the findings, making it impossible for him to have a fair trial. The Respondent apologised for the lateness of the application. He explained that he had not previously had the benefit of legal advice, but having recently contacted solicitors, he was advised that he should seek to adjourn these proceedings until the outcome of the criminal matter. Mr Levey submitted that as the Respondent had not yet been charged, there was no possible basis, under the Tribunal’s practice direction, to justify adjourning the hearing; charges had not yet been laid so criminal proceedings could not be described as “imminent”. The Applicant had contacted Dyfed-Powys police with a view to ascertaining how they intended to proceed. Unfortunately, no response had been received from them, and the Applicant was unable to provide any update to the Tribunal.  The Tribunal refused the Respondent’s application to adjourn the hearing.

Thomas explained that he had set up his firm as a sole practitioner in 2005. As a result of advice from his accountant, he changed the firm to a company. He was the only person in his practice who dealt with the probate matters which were the subject of the allegations. He denied that he had overcharged his clients, stating that he “honestly and truly believe that the charges were correct.” The cash shortage of £144,326.25 identified by the investigator in his first report had been rectified by the Respondent delivering bills of costs to the clients.

COMPLETELY CULPABLE

The Tribunal found the Respondent to be completely culpable for the breaches; the misconduct having arisen as a direct result of his sole actions. The Respondent was wholly responsible for the transfers and was the only fee earner with conduct of the matters. The Respondent was an experienced solicitor, who disregarded the regulations put in place to protect his clients. He utilised the funds in his client account in such a way as to demonstrate that he did not believe that he was accountable to his clients. His actions were planned and calculated. Of most concern was the blatant dishonesty he had displayed in abusing his position of trust. He deliberately and calculatedly delayed in distributing in full a number of estates, and during the delay drew down on the monies in those estates. The Tribunal found that in acting in the way that he did, the Respondent had caused harm not only to his clients and beneficiaries, but also to the trust the public places in the profession and the provision of legal services.

The Tribunal Ordered that the Respondent, Edgar Stephen George Thomas, solicitor, be struck off the Roll of Solicitors and it further he do pay costs of £76,000.00.