§ discipline
‹ Back

Peter Harry Perrey

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
BodySolicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT)
Professionsolicitor
Case number10509/2010
Date01/01/2010
OutcomeStrike off

Allegation / charges

Breaches, Client Money, Criminal Convictions, Failures, Solicitors' Accounts Rules, Others

Findings — machine-extracted (anthropic-batch:claude-opus-4-8); verify against the decision

SanctionStrike Off
Dishonesty foundYes

Peter Harry Perrey, a solicitor admitted in 1957, was found to have stolen £329,750 from trusts known as "The Tree Settlements" between 2002 and 2007, using the funds to support his practice and buy a car, and to have committed false accounting by borrowing £295,000 as a bridging loan and making false entries to conceal it. He had been convicted at Wolverhampton Crown Court of theft and false accounting and sentenced to 20 months' imprisonment (concurrent). The Tribunal expressly found his conduct dishonest by the standards of reasonable and honest people, and that he knew it was dishonest. Additional proved breaches included failure to remedy SAR breaches, wrongful retention of office monies in client account, failure to withdraw funds on file transfer, permitting unadmitted staff to withdraw client funds, and abandoning his practice. The Tribunal struck him off the Roll. Despite finding the SRA's claimed costs of £14,006.52 reasonable, it made no costs order given the Respondent's age (79), imprisonment, lack of assets and a confiscation order exceeding realisable assets.

Duties found breached:

Aggravating factors:

  • Theft of £329,750 over a period of more than 5 years in 18 transactions
  • Breach of a high level of trust over a long period
  • Betrayed his friend and client Mr McD
  • Criminal conviction on two counts of dishonesty
  • False accounting to conceal £295,000 borrowing

Mitigating factors:

  • Full and early admissions to all allegations
  • Previous good character with references reflecting high regard
  • Severe personal pressures - death of first wife, terminal illness of second wife, serious illness of third wife
  • Funds were used to keep the office running and pay staff rather than fund a lavish lifestyle
  • No previous disciplinary sanctions

Documents

Source: https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/case/10509/