The company secretary of the Respondent’s landlord reported on 30 March 2022 to the SRA that the Respondent, a sole owner of the Firm, had not been seen in circumstances where a number of confidential files had been left in the Firm’s premises unattended. The SRA received a letter six days later from solicitors acting for the landlord confirming that the Respondent’s office had been abandoned.

The SRA made numerous unsuccessful attempts to contact the Respondent before a decision was made to intervene into the practice on the 5 May 2022. A large number of files were uplifted by the intervention agents from the Firm’s premises. From the files uplifted, concerns were revealed ranging from service complaints to clients being invoiced without any evidence that the work being completed.

On the 13 January 2023, the Respondent returned a call from the SRA’s investigation Officer confirming that the mobile phone details held by the SRA for him were correct and confirming a home postal address. No further contact was made by the Respondent despite repeated attempts to contact him by the SRA.

The Respondent did not engage with the proceedings, and he did not serve an Answer nor offer any explanation for his conduct.

The Tribunal found, on the balance of probabilities, that the Applicant had proven all the allegations, and that the Respondent had breached Principles 2, 5 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2019, paragraphs 4.2, 6.3 and 7.6 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs (“the Code for Solicitors”); paragraphs 7.3 and 7.4 of the Code for Solicitors.