A former solicitor has lost an appeal against a decision of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, which had ordered him to be struck of the Roll of Solicitors for the improper transfer of funds and dishonest conduct.
Harry Francis Cottam, who had been a solicitor over 30 years, had appealed against an October 2023 Tribunal decision on the grounds that it was contradictory and its findings were wrong. Representing himself at the High Court, he told the appeal hearing that his mental health had been adversely impacted by being struck off, which he likened to being ‘a social leper’.
On dismissing the appeal, Mr Justice McDonald said he was satisfied there was no basis for concluding the decision of the Tribunal was wrong or unjust. However, he added that he ‘must commend Mr Cottam for the manner with which he conducted himself during a hearing that was undoubtedly difficult for him, his submissions having been clear and closely argued’.
The appeal centred on the findings of a Tribunal hearing related to three allegations against Mr Cottam brought by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. The first allegation, that he caused or allowed improper transfers of monies from the client account to the office accounts, was found to be proved at the Tribunal.
A second allegation that Mr Cottam had prepared or caused to be prepared false invoices in respect of improper client account to office account transfers was not proved. A third allegation, that the conduct had been dishonest and an aggravating feature of the misconduct, was found to be proved in relation to the improper transfer of monies.
The claim was brought by the SRA following a 2018 forensic inspection of Mr Cottam’s firm – Cottam’s Solicitors Limited, consisting of Cottam, a cashier and a conveyancer – after it received complaints related to the handling of client money.
An interim report produced following the investigation identified a cash shortage on the client account of £137,388.12 in relation to improper transfers, resulting in the suspension of Mr Cottam’s practising certificate. Until the investigation, Mr Cottam had an unblemished career with no previous formal disciplinary matters.
A final forensic report produced in March 2019 identified further transfers with a total value of £37,727.32 made from the client account to the office account, with no evidence on the client file of the work undertaken in relation to the transfers.
Mr Cottam accepted the transfers were improper but submitted medical evidence suggesting his judgement had been impaired due to mental health issues caused by a fire at the firm’s premises in 2015, suspected to be arson, and the receipt of death threats.
The Tribunal noted, however, that the medical evidence post-dated the period in which the transfers had taken place. Mr Cottam’s subsequent claim that the cashier had caused the transfers without his knowledge was rejected.
In explaining the sanctions it imposed, the Tribunal said the harm done to the profession had been significant, adding:
“Mr Cottam’s conduct was aggravated by his dishonesty. The improper transfers were deliberate, calculated and repeated and continued over a significant period of time. A year into the investigation, Mr Cottam sought to blame his cashier, TN, for the improper transfers.
“The Tribunal was unable to find genuine insight into the extent of his misconduct as he had tried to avoid responsibility by blaming TN. Whilst Mr Cottam had made admissions to the improper nature of the transfers at an early stage and had admitted his responsibility for them, he had subsequently resiled from that position.”
In his appeal, Mr Cottam set out 11 areas in which he said the Tribunal’s decision had been wrong, including the claim that it had ignored completely his ‘very detailed evidence’ and statements. The Tribunal had, he argued, ‘reached erroneous findings of fact which had, in turn, led the Tribunal to incorrect decisions’.
Explaining his decision to dismiss the appeal, Mr Justice McDonald said:
“With respect to Mr Cottam’s contention that the Tribunal erred in finding that Mr Cottam was aware that the transfers were taking place and that they were improper and “ignored completely Mr Cottam’s very detailed evidence in his Answer and statements to the contrary”, that evidence fell to be evaluated in the context of the totality of the evidence before the Tribunal, which included the clear concessions made by Mr Cottam in interview and in cross-examination as detailed in this judgment.
“Having regard to those admissions, and the wider evidence before the Tribunal, it cannot seriously be argued that it was unreasonable for the Tribunal to conclude that Mr Cottam was aware of the improper transfers and, by allowing them to continue, caused the transfers to occur.”
He added:
“In the event that the court dismisses, as it must do, Mr Cottam’s appeal on the facts, he pursues no appeal against the sanction imposed on him. As I have noted, Mr Cottam accepted that a finding of dishonesty would result in his removal from the Roll. In circumstances where Mr Cottam’s appeal fails for the reasons I have given, the finding of dishonesty stands.”
