A former partner at Essex-based law firm Cunningtons LLP has been struck off after asking another firm to backdate a property sale document to help his client avoid a £6,000 stamp duty charge.
Aymer Hutton approached the other firm involved in the conveyancing transaction after the completion of the sale missed the stamp duty holiday deadline of June 30, 2021. Completion occurred a day later, on July 1, when the funds were transferred, making his client liable for the tax.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) heard that Hutton initially called the other firm, requesting its secretary to backdate the transfer form. The request was promptly escalated to a fee earner, who firmly declined, noting: “No – not prepared to lie for him.”
Hutton followed up with an email to the fee earner, stating:
“Our clients do not have funds and so you can imagine we would like to avoid a claim. We paid your costs and late interest and hope please that in the circumstances the date can remain the 30 June.”
The other firm again refused the request, cautioning Hutton about the potential dishonesty of his actions. The matter was subsequently reported to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA).
Hutton argued that his actions were a “clumsy and naïve” attempt to resolve a delayed transaction rather than an act of fraud. He claimed his intention was to reflect the original agreement between the parties, who had planned to complete the sale by June 30.
The SDT, however, concluded that Hutton’s actions were aimed at avoiding his client’s stamp duty liability, which could have resulted in financial responsibility falling on his firm. While acknowledging his clear regulatory history and cooperation with the investigation, the tribunal found dishonesty proven.
The tribunal rejected Hutton’s mitigation that his actions were an isolated lapse during an extremely busy period, noting that the dishonesty, if successful, would have deceived HM Revenue & Customs.
In its ruling, the SDT emphasized:
“The integrity of the conveyancing process is founded upon the network of obligations which exist between the profession and others. There must be unshakeable confidence that solicitors will record accurately and discharge a liability to the Revenue as an integral part of that process.”
Hutton, who qualified as a solicitor in 1991, was struck off the roll and ordered to pay £5,000 in costs.
4 responses
I think struck off the roll is a bit too harsh, a suspension for a year or two seems more appropriate.
I agree, his behaviour was rather naive and very obtuse but striking him off the roll was rather Draconian? A three year Suspension with a large financial penalty might have saved the day.
i write this note to SRA to review the decision taken on the issue of Mr Hutton. please I beg you. you the publisher of this article make sure that this note reaches the SRA .
from Solly.
A ridiculously harsh punishment for a stupid, but minor transgression. If only the SRA had dealt with the Axiom Ince case with such rigour, but no, they much prefer to persecute easy targets like Mr Hutton, who can’t fight back.
And because the SRA are too cowardly to take on the big boys £36m of client money disappeared, and the legal profession has to pay up for the SRA’s incompetence.