Skip to main content
discipline 3 October 2026
‹ Browse decisions

Decision record

James Gordon Shute Harris

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
BodySolicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT)
Professionsolicitor
Case number8583/2002
Date01/01/2002
OutcomeStrike off

Allegation / charges

Client Money, Failures, Solicitors' Accounts Rules

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

SanctionStrike Off
CostsGBP 6,617
Dishonesty foundYes

James Gordon Shute Harris, a sole practitioner solicitor near retirement, faced allegations of dishonestly/improperly using client money, breaching the Solicitors Accounts Rules, and failing to keep proper accounting records. A Law Society investigation found a minimum shortage of £14,600.30, unallocated transfers, and nineteen round-sum transfers in the estate of Mrs D. The Respondent admitted the accounting breaches and impropriety but denied dishonesty, attributing errors to a sloppy bookkeeper and his own carelessness. The Tribunal found dishonesty specifically in relation to charging fees of £5,145 from the private account of Mrs G, an elderly client who had lost mental capacity, rejecting his claim of inadvertence for four closely-timed payments in October 2001. The Tribunal found general gross carelessness in his accounts. Given its duty to protect the public from dishonest solicitors, it struck him off the Roll and ordered costs of £6,617.27.

Duties found breached:

Aggravating factors:

  • Taking of fees from vulnerable client Mrs G who had lost mental capacity
  • Failure to register Enduring Power of Attorney with Court of Protection despite being on notice of client's deteriorating mental state
  • Multiple transfers/payments in close proximity from Mrs G's account
  • Minimum shortage of £14,600.30 on client account

Mitigating factors:

  • Long and previously unblemished career (admitted 1960, aged 69)
  • Positive references and standing in the community
  • Deficits repaid, with some overpayment made to correct shortages
  • Reliance on a sloppy/careless bookkeeper
  • Voluntary attempt to retire and remove name from Roll

Duties engaged

Documents

Source: https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/case/8583/