Bernard Rodney Brandon

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

Bernard Rodney Brandon, a solicitor admitted in 1971, faced seven allegations across Rule 5 and Rule 7 Statements. The hearing proceeded in his absence (he cited illness but provided no medical report supporting adjournment). The Tribunal found five allegations proved to the criminal standard: failure to comply with a professional undertaking regarding clearing a leasehold title; two instances of failing to deal with the SRA openly, promptly and co-operatively; failure to act with integrity in reneging on agreements to pay costs; and acting in a manner likely to diminish public confidence. Two allegations (1.3 failure relating to Adjudicator orders, and 2.4 failure to uphold the rule of law) were not proved. Dishonesty was not alleged; the Tribunal found a lack of integrity, not dishonesty. Given the seriousness, lack of insight, and two previous disciplinary findings (1988 and 1994), the Tribunal ordered the Respondent struck off the Roll and to pay costs of £16,464.22 (reduced from over £45,000), not enforceable without leave given his limited means. The Tribunal also ordered the two SRA Adjudicator Directions enforceable as High Court orders.

Duties found breached:

• No baseless or threatened misconduct report
• No improper communication with the court
• Proper basis for allegations
• Uphold public trust in the profession

Aggravating factors:

• Misconduct continued over a period of several years
• Two previous disciplinary findings against the Respondent (1988 fine of £1,500 and 1994 suspension), including prior failures to comply with undertakings
• Lack of insight into his conduct; failure to grasp or address the issues
• Denied giving an undertaking when he clearly was the person who gave it
• Cavalier and unprofessional attitude to the SRA; refusal to submit to regulation
• Used court procedures when it suited him but ignored court decisions he disagreed with

Mitigating factors:

• Received a large volume of correspondence from the SRA and others, contributing to a sense of being pursued and to general pressures
• Had taken steps to close his Firm in an orderly way with no outstanding claims
• Was in a poor financial position
• At the time he gave the undertaking he believed he could comply with it and had not set out to deceive anyone
• No member of the public was directly harmed