The sole practitioner of a law firm has been struck off by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) and ordered to pay costs of over £45,000 after he was found to have acted “dishonestly”.
Andrew Lee, the sole director, manager and compliance officer of London-based firm Prometheus Law Ltd, continued to act for clients despite his professional indemnity insurance having expired, according to the SDT.
He was also found to have mislead a client in relation to the insurance policy and mislead the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) in masking professional work between a client as “informal help between friends”.
It was heard during a four-day Tribunal which concluded in September, that Lee failed to renew his insurance before it expired on 31 March 2022 and failed again to renew it within the extended period of 30 days.
As stated by the Insurance Industry Requirements, following the expiry of this, a firm then enters a cessation period of 60 days by which new restrictions apply to work carried out by the business.
These include a firm not being liable to take on new clients or accept new instructions from existing clients and ceasing practise promptly or by the end of the cessation period, unless it obtains a qualifying policy backdate to the expiry of the original one.
Lee failed to renew the insurance and did not close the firm at the end of the cessation period in April 2022, instead continuing to act for clients up until the SRA intervened back on 30 July 2023.
The Tribunal accepted that the practitioner “worked hard to persuade the insurer to restore cover and was trying to save a firm he had built over many years” however continuing to practise the SDT found was “dishonest”.
In a further proven allegation on 21 April 2023, Lee sent a client (client H) an engagement letter signed by himself which twice stated the firm had professional indemnity insurance, despite it being expired.
Lee claimed it was an “outdated template that had not been reviewed”, however the Tribunal rejected this explanation given the practitioner’s “close attention to detail and what he knew about the firm’s position”.
In addition, the respondent admitted during the hearing that he had not notified the SRA when the firm entered the extended cessation policy period, the court heard, and it was proved he left the regulator’s enquiries unanswered leading to the SRA having to obtain a High Court order for delivery up of documents.
It was also heard that in response to the SRA’s questions over the relationship and dealings Lee had with a client (client J), the respondent had summarised this as “help between friends”, meanwhile documents exchanged between him and the client showed he had given formal legal advice, requested and received money on account, issued an invoice, asked for identification for anti-money laundering checks and lodged a caveat preventing issue of a grant of probate in the particular matter concerned.
Lee’s admissions that he recognised the professional nature of the relationship “in hind sight” were rejected by the SDT, which instead found “he knew at the time that Client J was his client, and that his account to the SRA was knowingly misleading”.
Lastly, it was found the respondent had failed to keep proper accounts.
Lee accepted responsibility for most of the underlying facts, however denied acting dishonestly and without integrity, the Tribunal heard.
In summary, the SDT said: “The Tribunal accepted that he had not been motivated by greed.
“His dishonesty, however, was deliberate, occurred in three different contexts, and continued despite clear warnings.
“It also continued despite his assurance to the SRA’s investigator in September 2022 that he would do no further legal work until insurance was in place.
“Clients were deprived of important protections, and the regulator was misled.”
The Tribunal ordered that the respondent be struck off the roll and pay the SRA’s costs of £45,121.40.
