Mrs A’s late husband purchased Property 1, a substantial family home, in 1967. An equity release mortgage was put in place over the property by the Firm in 2002 to fund medical and assistance costs. Mrs A inherited the property after her husband’s death in 2008.

In or around 2011 Mrs A investigated selling and/or developing and then selling Property 1. In 2012 Mrs A asked Mr Buckle to advise on development proposals that she had commissioned from her own contacts (“the First Development Proposal”). Negotiations, in which Mr Buckle acted for Mrs A, continued. In September 2013 there was a meeting at Property 1, at which Mr Buckle introduced his own builder, Mr Foreman of Alexa Developments, and others to Mrs A. In November 2013, the builder and investor under the First Development Proposal withdrew from the project. By this time, Mrs A had a substantial mortgage to repay and she needed third party funding for the development project to succeed.

On or around 19 February 2014 Mr Buckle gave Mrs A a spreadsheet (“the Comparison Document”) which set out a development proposal of his own (“the Second Development Proposal”) and compared it with the First Development Proposal. Mr Buckle advised Mrs A to take independent legal advice on his alternative proposal, which she did, from a Mr Baker, whose only suggestion was that the rent proposed for alternative accommodation which Mr Buckle would buy and Mrs A would occupy was too high. Mr Buckle agreed to be reimbursed for his mortgage interest payments, in lieu of rent.

On or around 20 February 2014 Mrs A agreed to proceed with the Second Development Proposal, which was essentially that once Property 1 was fully developed and sold, Mrs A would receive a minimum of £2.2 million from the proceeds. Mr Buckle would finance the development costs, up to a maximum of £1 million, for which he would be reimbursed. The equity release mortgage would be discharged, and Mr Buckle would be entitled to a 50% share of any profit, capped at £500,000. The project would be administered through Mr Buckle’s own companies – DFB for contracting and RKB for financing. There was no retainer letter and there were no written agreements or protections between the parties, beyond the Comparison Document delivered in February 2014.

In April 2014 Mrs A moved into Property 2, which Mr Buckle had purchased, in order that the Property 1 development works could begin. No tenancy agreement was signed, and no rent was actually paid. Mrs A lived there for the rest of her life until she passed away in February 2025. Mrs A’s second husband, Mr Lis, continues to reside there.

On or around 22 April 2014 plans were discussed to devise new, more ambitious plans for the development and planning permission was subsequently acquired.

The development works on Property 1 (“the Project”) did not go smoothly. Works were originally estimated to take 12 months but were still not finished six years later. Costs escalated. Between 2014 and 2020, Mr Buckle recorded, on his Firm’s system, time spent in connection with the Project. In 2015 Mr Buckle began sending Mrs A a monthly allowance and occasional one-off sums to cover living expenses (“the Loans”). This continued until 2020 when the relationship between Mr Buckle and Mrs A broke down, after Mr Buckle submitted records of substantial ‘finance and legal’ costs, nominally payable by Mrs A. At this time, the works to Property 1 were still incomplete.

In September 2021 the Firm, on behalf of Mr Buckle in his capacity as director of RKB, wrote to Mrs A seeking over £2 million for build, finance and administrative costs and professional fees in respect of Property 1. Mrs A disputed the claim and made a report to the SRA in November 2021.

Property 1 was sold in January 2022 to Rose Cottage Farm Limited Farm Ltd for £2.5 million. Mrs A received approximately £700,000 after costs and repayment of the equity release mortgage. Mr Buckle received nothing in return for his investment and other financial support. Mr Buckle has reported the matter to Kent Police as a fraud, asserting that Mrs A and her associates have conspired to defraud him of significant sums of money.

The Tribunal dismissed all the allegations against Mr Buckle. It found that he acted in his personal capacity as a financier in relation to the Second Development Proposal and not as a solicitor. The Tribunal determined that Mrs A was not vulnerable individual and Mr Buckle did not take advantage of her. It concluded that whilst Mr Buckle did undertake periodic work as a solicitor for Mrs A during the period February 2014 – 2020, there was not an own interest conflict or a significant risk of one as Mr Buckle’s and Mrs A’s interests were aligned. Whilst the Tribunal found that Mr Buckle failed to ensure that appropriate contractual arrangements were in place in relation to the Project, the occupation of Property 2 and the Loans, it did not consider that there was any professional misconduct, because the lack of documentation was to Mrs A’s benefit and to Mr Buckle’s detriment. The Tribunal also concluded that, when Mr Buckle was acting in his personal capacity, he did not undertake unfair advantage of Mrs A as he supported her financially throughout. Mr Buckle was the only party who suffered loss from the development of Property 1.

The Tribunal ordered that the Applicant pay the Respondent costs fixed in the sum of £50,000.00.