The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal has reprimanded a solicitor for failing to provide a client with adequate information relating to a property transaction, following an investigation by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.
Mark Feely, a partner of David Barney & Co, must also pay costs of £6,000.
The client, referred to as Client A, reported concerns related to Feely’s conduct in relation to a property transaction between Client A and his son, JR.
The transaction involved the transfer of Client A’s home – his only asset and his residence – into JR’s sole name.
Client A complained that Feely never offered or gave him any legal advice during the property transaction, did not provide any documentation relating to the transaction, and failed to confirm his identity and health.
The complaint centred around a series of emails between Feely and JR beginning in January 2020, in which JR explained the circumstances of the property – a smallholding “which has a couple of grand left on the mortgage” which he said his father planned to give him.
A further email from JR introduced Feely to Client A, to which Client A responded asking Feely to tell him if he required any information.
An email to Feely from JR’s solicitor in October 2020 asked Feely to “confirm your client’s state of health and ability to enter into the transaction” and advising there were two charges on the property.
A further email from JR’s solicitor was sent to Feely in December 2020 requesting information. Despite having no substantive direct email, telephone or in-person contact with Client A, he told JR’s solicitor:
“…Apologies for the delays from my end. I am sending out to my client the 6 TP1s for signing, can I also check please are we using all of the plans from your email of 23/10 as well to go with the TP1s, or am I ignoring those plans and using just the ones in the email of 6/11?”
Feely did not dispute that he had neither spoken to nor taken instructions directly from Client A at that stage of the transaction, nor had he provided him with any information regarding his client care arrangements or confirmed his health or capacity to enter into the transaction.
Feely continued to correspond with JR and his solicitor and proceeded to complete the transfer of equity in December 2020.
In February 2023, Feely was contacted by solicitors acting for Client A in civil litigation with JR. Shortly afterwards, he self-reported to the SRA for “a possible breach due to lack of procedures followed on a matter”.
Following an investigation by the SRA, allegations were brought against Feely that he had failed to provide Client A with “any or adequate” information regarding the terms of his instruction and client care arrangements, or advice on the transaction.
The SRA also claimed that when acting for Client A on the transfer of the property, Feely communicated with or through JR and took instructions on aspects of the transaction from JR.
The second allegations were dismissed, but the tribunal agreed that Feely had failed to provide Client A with adequate information regarding the terms of his instruction and client care arrangements, or advice on the transaction.
The tribunal’s decision notes: “JR was Client A’s son and the proposed transferee under the transaction. The Applicant maintained that the Respondent should have recognised that it was inappropriate to communicate with, or accept instructions from, JR in those circumstances and should not have relied upon any instructions received from him.”
In his evidence, Feely denied his actions constituted manifest incompetence and emphasised that the allegations arose from a single conveyancing transaction during an otherwise unblemished professional career spanning 23 years. There was no pattern of similar conduct and no repetition of the matters complained of, he added.
The tribunal found Feely to be a “credible and reliable witness”, but the terms of his instruction, client care arrangements and advice on the transaction “were clearly insufficient”.
The SRA’s allegation of manifest incompetence as an aggravating feature was dismissed, with the tribunal “satisfied that the proven misconduct arose in the context of a single transaction and did not demonstrate the systemic or fundamental lack of competence necessary” to justify the finding.
Although the tribunal found the misconduct to be too serious to warrant taking no action, it said the failures concerned “fundamental obligations owed to a client” and could undermine public confidence if left without regulatory sanction.
Noting the misconduct was at “the lower end of the spectrum” of seriousness and there were no aggravating features, a reprimand was considered “the fair and appropriate sanction”.
