A conveyancing solicitor who failed to disclose links to a borrower has been fined £12500 by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT).
Mark Robert Westwood, a consultant at ONP Group, acted in five transactions between September 2016 and October 2020 in which he himself, or a relative, was the borrower; a conflict of Section 1.15 (Part 1) of the Lenders Handbook which states
“Your firm or company must not act for us if the partner or fee earner dealing with the transaction or a member of his immediate family is the borrower, unless we say your firm may act (see part 2) and a separate fee earner of no less standing or a partner within the firm acts for us”.
Westwood was reported to the SRA when legal counsel at lender Clydesdale Bank reported a certificate of title signed in October 2020, was in fact signed by Westwood himself. They complained that this was a ‘breach of the bank’s instructions, a breach of all normal rules of conveyancing, and a significant conflict of interest.’
During the tribunal Westwood said he had not intended to have any involvement in the transaction, which would be carried out by a member of the team in another office. However, he said, the firm was ‘working under exceptional circumstances… due to the Covid-19 pandemic’ and he had signed the title “without thinking and in the heat of the moment” with “no intention of being duplicitous.”
In it’s decision the SDT said
“The Respondent acted in an own interest conflict on five conveyancing matters by acting (and / or supervising) for the borrowers and lenders where he had an interest. (notwithstanding certifying the contrary to the lender). Acting in this way was also prohibited by the Lenders Handbook/s. He failed to inform the circumstances of each transaction to his lender client and deal with the transactions in an appropriate manner in compliance with the Lender’s Handbook,”
adding Westwood had ‘direct responsibility’ for the misconduct and there was therefore a high level of culpability. In mitigation it was acknowledged he had admitted fault, cooperated with the investigation, and shown genuine remorse.
In summing up the SDT considered a reprimand an insufficient sanction and said it was ‘proportionate and in the public interest that the Respondent should be fined.’ Westwood was fined £12500 and ordered to pay costs of £19,670.
