Howard Robert Gillespie Young

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

Howard Robert Gillespie Young, a sole practitioner at CMG Law, faced nine proven allegations. The most serious was that he dishonestly gave a client (Mr H) false information about a purported court hearing and created and handed over a fabricated Court Order purporting to award £330,000. The Tribunal found this dishonest under the Twinsectra test (beyond reasonable doubt). Other findings included failing to return/account for a £3,000 payment from Mr B, repeated failures to comply with seven High Court Orders (leading to a suspended prison sentence for contempt), failure to cooperate with the LCS/SRA/Legal Ombudsman, failure to deliver an Accountant's Report, practising as a sole practitioner in breach of PC conditions, failure to pay an indemnity premium of £162,874.64, practising without a practising certificate after 9 February 2011, and abandoning client files. He did not attend; service was by advertisement. The Tribunal struck him off the Roll (finding no exceptional circumstances) and ordered costs assessed at £23,534. No tribunal fine was imposed (the £5,000 fine and £15,550 costs referenced were imposed by the High Court).

Duties found breached:

• Accounting records, reconciliation and reports
• Cease acting on client perjury or disobedience
• Comply with and respect court orders
• Hold a current practising certificate
• No conflict between current clients
• No improper communication with the court
• No improper use of client money
• Professional indemnity insurance

Aggravating factors:

• Express finding of dishonesty (false information and fabricated Court Order given to client Mr H)
• Two previous appearances before the Tribunal involving similar misconduct (fined £5,000 and costs £7,500 in 2009; fined £20,000 and costs £1,955 in 2010)
• Established pattern of repeatedly ignoring correspondence and failing to cooperate with regulators
• Contempt of court resulting in a suspended sentence of imprisonment; bench warrants issued on two occasions
• Persisted in misconduct despite Tribunal's prior warnings
• Complete failure to engage with the proceedings