§ discipline
‹ Browse decisions

Christopher Digby Korman Edwards

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
BodySolicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT)
Professionsolicitor
Case number6897/1995
Date01/01/1995
OutcomeStrike off

Allegation / charges

Criminal Convictions

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

SanctionStrike Off
CostsGBP 712
Dishonesty foundYes

The respondent, admitted in 1980, was convicted at Gloucester Crown Court on his own confession of forgery and using a false instrument under the Forgery & Counterfeiting Act 1981. Acting for buyers in a ship sale, he had a company seal made and signed/sealed a document purporting to be from the sellers (M Limited) to delete a vessel from the British Register. A financial dispute existed in the background, and the police were notified when the ship was found deleted; the respondent went to the police and admitted what he had done. The crown court fined him £2,000 plus £360 prosecution costs. The Tribunal found the allegation substantiated, expressly referring to his "dishonest action," and ordered him struck off the Roll and to pay costs of £712 inclusive.

Duties found breached:

Aggravating factors:

  • Created a false document, a fall from grace by a solicitor
  • Conduct could have had extremely serious consequences

Mitigating factors:

  • Single isolated uncharacteristic aberrational act
  • Respondent voluntarily went to the police and made a clean breast of what he had done
  • Believed he was completing a mere formality, holding a board minute and Power of Attorney authorising deletion of the ship from the Register
  • Excellent character testimonials; highly regarded by professionals and others
  • Supported charitable causes including cancer charities and a Burmese refugee student
  • Married with two young children and wife expecting a third
  • No actual harm resulted from the act
  • Acted under great pressure while alone in the office
  • Apologised and admitted the allegation

Duties engaged

Documents

Source: https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/case/6897/