The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has fined a solicitor more than £20,000 for “a reckless disregard to the risk of harm and his regulatory obligations” over five years.
Bryn Roberts, a sole practitioner at Evan Roberts in Machynlleth, Wales, was fined £20,148 and ordered to pay costs of £1,350.
The SRA found Roberts had breached several of its principles, including failing to act in the best interests of clients, failure to respond to complaints or co-operate with the Legal Ombudsman and the SRA. It also found Roberts had authorised an improper transfer from the client account.
In June 2021, the SRA received a report about Roberts’ handling of an estate and delays in the administration of the estate. The SRA contacted Roberts about this matter on three occasions before issuing a production notice due to his slow responses.
Roberts only sent a partial response to the production notice, as a consequence of which the SRA began a forensic investigation into the firm.
The investigation discovered a client account shortage of £30,848.73 for a period of almost three years and was replaced four months after discovery. It also identified no client account reconciliations had been completed, as well as potential client debit balances totalling £1,517.74.
Between 11th September 2023 and 4th May 2024, the SRA received a further six complaints about the firm and its handling of client matters, including a report from the Legal Ombudsman.
A second forensic investigation found that Roberts had failed to provide satisfactory explanations for his conduct on the six client matters, didn’t provide the accountant’s report, and didn’t comply with the SRA’s requests or co-operate with the Legal Ombudsman’s enquiries.
The SRA decided that a financial penalty was an appropriate and proportionate sanction due to Roberts’ “reckless disregard to the risk of harm and his regulatory obligations”.
It said his failure to register charges and transfers, to protect interests in the interim period and misfiling client files “all had the potential to cause significant harm to clients”.
The SRA noted that Roberts took remedial action only when prompted and the breaches “persisted longer than was reasonable”.
His conduct was placed in Band D, which has a financial penalty bracket of between 65% and 97% of his annual gross income.
The SRA concluded: “Any lesser sanction would not provide a credible deterrent to Mr Roberts, and others. A credible deterrent plays a key role in maintaining professional standards and upholding public confidence.”
