§ discipline
‹ Browse decisions

John Barry Shaw

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
BodySolicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT)
Professionsolicitor
Case number6952/1995
Date01/01/1995
OutcomeStrike off

Allegation / charges

Client Money, Failures, Others

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

SanctionStrike Off
CostsGBP 8,000
Dishonesty foundNo

The respondent held some £25,000 (part of a sum of not less than £30,000) for his client Miss A, representing her sole asset and intended to generate income. He withdrew funds without explanation and used £15,000 to purchase 40% of the shares in C Travel Limited, taking the shares in his own name. He represented this as a loan arrangement between Miss A and Mr B (an undischarged bankrupt), purportedly secured on deeds, but no loan terms were documented and the deeds were not adequate security. The shares later proved worthless and were transferred away without consideration. The Tribunal found allegations (i), (ii)(b) and (ii)(c) substantiated, describing the conduct as a gross abuse of trust. It ordered the respondent struck off the Roll and to pay costs of £8,000. (Note: he had previously been struck off / dealt with on 24 May 1990 matters relating to supervision of a clerk.)

Duties found breached:

Aggravating factors:

  • Use of a vulnerable client's sole asset (Miss A aged 57)
  • Extreme conflict of interest
  • Use of client funds to acquire shares in an unlisted company that became worthless
  • Misled the Association of British Travel Agents as to his status
  • Conduct described as a gross abuse of trust / disgraceful

Mitigating factors:

  • Respondent admitted the allegations and expressed deep regret
  • Maintained there was no intention of personal gain
  • Relatively junior solicitor (about five years' experience) at the material time in 1985
  • Believed his own training had been inadequate
  • Personal and financial hardship: unemployed, redundant, in an insolvency voluntary arrangement facing possible bankruptcy, separated with two children
  • Police investigated but the CPS decided no action should be taken

Duties engaged

Documents

Source: https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/case/6952/