The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal have cited Wingate and Ivey to clear a solicitor accused of lacking integrity and acting dishonestly after he accepted bequests in clients’ wills.
Matthew Beach, former manager of Wills Chandler Beach in Hampshire, made a number of errors after some of his clients had amended their wills and made gifts to the solicitor.
Despite attempting to source professionals to act as a second opinion, some of his actions failed to adhere to SRA regulations.
One client originally bequeathed Mr Beach £10,000 in her will. During this process, the solicitor thought that he was following SRA protocol when he advised his client to seek a second opinion before implementing the bequest. Mr Beach asked a member of his firm to act as the second opinion.
However, when the client requested an updated fifth version of the will, increasing his bequest to £20,000, the solicitor failed to advise his client to seek an independent second opinion.
Mr Beach also used a legal executive engaged by the firm as an independent second opinion in a similar situation where another client had bequest a gift to the solicitor.
Whilst adopting the Wingate test to argue against accusations of lacking integrity, the tribunal determined that the second opinion was originally used and had been adequate and fair advice. Additionally, Mr Beach did not seem to be motivated by personal gain and no pressure was placed on the client.
The judgment added: ‘An honest mistake on what was not a straightforward issue was regrettable but did not indicate that [Beach] had failed to adhere to the ethical standards of the profession.’
When reviewing the dishonesty charge, the Ivey test looked at Beach’s knowledge and how his actions fared against standards of the public.
The tribunal found that Beach’s mistakes would not meet the Ivey test because they were genuine and honest. He had attempted to advise his clients to instruct independent advice before bequests were implemented into a will.
However, Beach had failed to follow SRA protocol as the second opinion professional working for Beach’s firm created a conflict of interest and the advice was not ‘sufficiently independent.’
Beach was ordered to pay £20,000 of the SRA’s application of £50,000 in costs after losing the misconduct charge.
Because of these professional oversights, Beach was also fined £7,500 for misconduct. Overwhelmingly positive testimonial evidence, from twelve clients, highlighting Beach’s selfless ability to work in the best interests of the client, encouraged the tribunal to insist the decision does not affect his ability to practise in the future.
Are you aware of professionals that have been affected by similar issues? Why is it so important to ensure that SRA regulations are followed prescriptively? Was the punishment too severe in this case?
