Between
| Applicant | Solicitors Regulation Authority Ltd |
|---|---|
| Respondent | Jack Grunhut |
Case details
| Allegation | Breaches, Code of Conduct 2011, Code of Conduct for Solicitors, REL's & RFL's 2019, Dishonesty, Lack of Integrity, SRA Principles 2011, SRA Principles 2019 |
|---|---|
| Outcome | Strike off |
| Executive summary | The Respondent appealed the Tribunal’s decision dated 17 January 2024. The appeal was heard by Mrs Justice Lang on 19 February 2025 and Judgment was handed down on 14 March 2025. The appeal was dismissed, and the Tribunal’s factual findings and its decision on sanction and costs were upheld: Jack Grunhut v SRA [2025] EWHC 592 (Admin) The Allegations against Mr Grunhut related to his work at two firms: Berlad Graham and Taylor Rose. In relation to Allegation 1, Mr Grunhut generated a deed of trust in June 2020 but dated it 17 June 2019. This was sent to his client, who signed and returned it. This was in the context of an application for Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT) relief. Mr Grunhut’s case was that he had drafted the document as an aide memoire to show the client what the Deed of Trust would have looked like at his client’s request and believed that the document returned to him was the original that had been signed in 2019. The Tribunal rejected Mr Grunhut’s evidence and found this matter proved in full, including the allegation of dishonesty. Allegations 2 and 4 related to false and misleading emails sent by Mr Grunhut to Berlad Graham. This related to loans from clients (Allegation 2) and referral/introducer arrangements (Allegation 4). The SRA’s case was that he had done so knowingly and dishonestly in relation to Allegation 2. Dishonesty was not alleged in relation to Allegations 4. Mr Grunhut’s case was that the contents of the emails were accurate as he perceived the situation at the time. The Tribunal rejected this and found both Allegations proved in full. Allegation 3 was that Mr Grunhut had given an undertaking without his client’s permission. His defence was that he had not given the undertaking and that a colleague had done so having accessed his emails without consent. The Tribunal rejected this and found that the undertaking had been given. However, it was not satisfied to the requisite standard that the client had not consented to the undertaking being given. On that basis, Allegation 3 was not proved. Allegation 6 was admitted and found proved. |