Skip to main content
discipline 4 October 2026
‹ Browse decisions

Decision record

P J Lawson & Another

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
BodySolicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT)
Professionsolicitor
Case number9529/2006
Date01/01/2006
OutcomeS.43 Order (clerks), Suspend - Indefinite

Allegation / charges

Breaches, Failures, Others

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

SanctionSuspension
CostsGBP 21,000
Dishonesty foundNo

Peter John Lawson, an experienced sole practitioner, was found guilty of conduct unbefitting a solicitor for repeatedly breaching the Solicitors Practice Rules, particularly on conflicts of interest. He made loans of client/trust funds to his son's company (Ventroday) and others, sold estate/trust properties to himself, his family and Ventroday, and benefited (along with staff) from clients' wills without ensuring independent advice. The Applicant expressly did not allege dishonesty, and the Tribunal found Mr Lawson honest and acting with integrity, but held his conduct wholly wrong. Allegations were proved (save impairment of integrity within allegation 1). He was suspended indefinitely and ordered to pay £21,000 costs. The Second Respondent clerk was subject to a Section 43 Order effective 15 June 2007 with no costs order against her.

Duties found breached:

Aggravating factors:

  • Repeated breaches of the Practice Rules over many years
  • Little knowledge of the relevant rules and inability to recognise wrongdoing even at hearing
  • Previous disciplinary finding in 1990 (though on a different issue)
  • Conduct repeatedly left him open to suspicion of dishonesty

Mitigating factors:

  • No dishonesty; Tribunal found him honest
  • No client suffered any loss and no client complained
  • All loans repaid with interest
  • Full cooperation - made all files available and no deficiencies in books of account
  • Old-fashioned/idiosyncratic but well-intentioned approach
  • Limited means (state and private pension)

Duties engaged

Documents

Source: https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/case/9529/