Peter Maxwell Durham

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

Peter Maxwell Durham, admitted January 1993, established a sole practice within weeks of admission in breach of Practice Rule 13, practising without required supervision while handling clients' money and large sums (c.£89,000) from the Legal Aid Board. He failed to keep proper books of account, did not deliver an accountant's report on time, failed to produce books for inspection, gave a misleading explanation to the Bureau (claiming he only worked for friends/family from home), made legal aid claims he could not justify, and failed to reply to Bureau letters. The Tribunal found all allegations substantiated. No fraud was alleged and dishonesty was not expressly found, but the Tribunal found a cavalier disregard for the rules, with the most serious matter being misleading his professional body. He was struck off and ordered to pay costs of £3,680.90, with the order suspended for 14 days pending a possible appeal.

Duties found breached:

• Proper basis for allegations
• Complaints procedure and handling
• No conflict between current clients
• Accounting records, reconciliation and reports
• Report serious misconduct of others
• No improper solicitation or touting

Aggravating factors:

• Cavalier/reckless disregard for the rules of the profession
• Set up sole practice within days of admission
• Misled his own professional body
• Employed unqualified, unsupervised fee earners and could not justify claims
• No file records survived for numerous legally aided matters
• Created appearance of supervision via Luper Partnership arrangement which was not genuine supervision

Mitigating factors:

• No fraud was alleged or found
• Repaid overpaid legal aid claims (£2,150 to Legal Aid Board)
• Eventually produced an accountant's report and remedied book-keeping failures
• Inexperience in practice management
• Personal difficulties and disorientation around marriage/honeymoon and transfers between firms
• Co-operated with the Investigation Accountant once contact made
• Apologised for misleading letter and failures