Marie-Garrard Newton
Allegation / charges
Breaches, Delays, Failures, Others, Solicitors' Accounts Rules
Findings — machine-extracted (anthropic-batch:claude-opus-4-8); verify against the decision
The Respondent, a solicitor admitted in 1971, faced ten allegations arising from adverse findings in a High Court judgment concerning conveyancing transactions and client funds for one client (Mr C) and his agent (Mr N). She admitted all allegations, including dishonesty on seven of nine allegations, encompassing giving untrue oral evidence at trial, concealing a property sale price, making unauthorised payments of £1.5 million and £2 million from client account, and misleading insurers, colleagues and counsel. The Tribunal found all allegations proved, including dishonesty. Despite mitigation including her long unblemished career and intention to retire, the Tribunal found no exceptional circumstances and ordered she be struck off the Roll and pay costs of £30,000.
Duties found breached:
- Not mislead the court
- Not mislead third parties or opponents
- No conflict between current clients
- No improper use of client money
- Firm governance, systems and compliance
- Truthful, non-misleading advertising
- Not misrepresent regulated status
Aggravating factors:
- Admitted intention to mislead the Court
- Misled colleagues, Counsel and the firm's professional indemnity insurers
- Misconduct continued over a period of time and related to more than one transaction
- Deliberate and repeated conduct involving more than one improper transfer of money
- Dishonesty admitted in seven of nine allegations
- Limited insight shown until recently, having originally contested the allegations
Mitigating factors:
- Over 45 years of practice with a previously unblemished record
- Made admissions and signed a Statement of Agreed Facts
- Cooperated with the investigation and surrendered her practising certificate
- Retired and had no intention of practising again
- Agreed to pay £60,000 to her former firm's professional indemnity insurers
- Involved with clients and individuals (Mr C and Mr N) whose evidence the Judge found needed to be treated with great caution