A D Hamilton & Another

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

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found numerous allegations of conduct unbefitting a solicitor against two partners of Hamilton Ward & Co. The First Respondent, Mr Hamilton, the dominant managing partner, was found to have committed wide-ranging breaches including failures of supervision, complaints handling, undertakings, mishandling client money, overcharging and misleading client care letters. Crucially, the Tribunal expressly found Mr Hamilton's conduct in six conveyancing transactions (acting for all parties including his own company Broadhill Properties Ltd, which earned high interest, and withholding information from institutional lenders bearing hallmarks of mortgage fraud) was dishonest applying Royal Brunei v Tan and Twinsectra v Yardley. He was struck off and ordered to pay £12,114 costs. The Second Respondent admitted most allegations on the basis of strict liability as a partner without personal culpability, having been obstructed and dominated by Mr Hamilton; he was fined £5,000 and ordered to pay £1,500 costs.

Duties found breached:

• No improper communication with the court
• No taking unfair advantage
• Not mislead third parties or opponents
• Act in the client's best interests
• Complaints procedure and handling
• Proper termination and return of instructions
• No conflict between current clients
• Handle inadvertently received material
• No improper use of client money
• Honour professional undertakings
• Not misrepresent regulated status

Aggravating factors:

• Dishonest conduct in conveyancing transactions with hallmarks of mortgage fraud
• Acting for all parties including company in which he was director and majority shareholder
• Failure to disclose relevant information to institutional lenders
• Attempting to pressure a client to withdraw a complaint
• Persistent non-response to OSS and clients
• Company derived extraordinarily high rate of interest from transactions
• Non-engagement with disciplinary proceedings; 'stranger to truth and propriety'
• Scandalous and unfounded allegations against the Law Society's solicitor

Mitigating factors:

• (For Second Respondent) liability as principal/strict liability rather than personal culpability
• Second Respondent resigned from partnership once aware of Mr Hamilton's conduct
• Second Respondent dominated and obstructed by Mr Hamilton
• Second Respondent good record otherwise and of competence and integrity
• Second Respondent's caring for terminally ill partner (Mr Hamilton's stated personal circumstances)