A fixed share partner responsible for wills, trust and probate has been struck off by the Solicitors Regulation Authority for backdating a memorandum of appropriation and misleading a client with regard to the address a will was sent to.
The SRA brought two allegations against Michael Lillywhite, who had practised for 14 years with an otherwise unblemished record.
In the first allegation in respect of Client A, Lillywhite emailed an executor attaching a draft MoA in which the day and month were left blank and the typed year 2023 appeared on all body pages. The executed page was subsequently returned signed by all executors and dated 13 February 2023.
On 20 February 2023, Lillywhite emailed the residuary beneficiary attaching the front pages of the MoA with the date 13 December and a typed year 2022 but omitting the executed page bearing the date 13 February 2023. An internal review by the firm concluded the MoA pages conveyed a misleading impression of the timing of the execution of the MoA.
In the second allegation, Lillywhite sent a letter to Client B on 27 January 2023 enclosing a draft will. Client B replied on 3 March 2023 stating nothing had been received and providing his new address. The firm’s office logs showed Lillywhite had edited the will in its digital system before replying, “How strange, I have checked the details, and all seems to be fine,” before attaching a fresh copy of the will with the new address. The firm concluded the email had been misleading.
The SDT received character evidence attesting to Lillywhite’s professionalism and integrity and noted he had an unblemished regulatory record. In mitigation, unchallenged medical evidence confirmed Lillywhite had experienced depression, anxiety and associated impairment of judgment during the relevant period.
“These difficulties formed part of the context in which his context should be viewed,” the SDT’s decision noted. “The proven conduct was out of character and occurred during a period of significant personal and significant stress.”
Applying the test in Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd , the tribunal found dishonesty proved on both allegations.
“Given the nature, extent and scope of the dishonesty – encompassing conduct on two separate occasions and forming the most significant factor – the absence of personal gain and the limited direct harm to others were not capable of displacing the default position that findings of dishonesty ordinary require a strike off,” the decision noted.
“Accordingly, the Tribunal did not regard this as falling within the small residual category of cases in which a sanction other than a strike off was appropriate.”
Lillywhite was also ordered to pay costs of £15,000.
