Skip to main content
discipline 4 October 2026
‹ Browse decisions

Decision record

Phillip Andrew Stewart Davies

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
BodySolicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT)
Professionsolicitor
Case number10963/2012
Date01/01/2012
OutcomeProhibition Order

Allegation / charges

Failures, Others

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

SanctionOther
CostsGBP 15,246
Dishonesty foundNo

Philip Andrew Stewart Davies, a former solicitor and principal of Ravencourt Legal Services, was found to have failed to properly supervise an experienced assistant solicitor, Mr Jones, who conducted numerous conveyancing transactions bearing the hallmarks of mortgage fraud (Mr Jones was later convicted of conspiracy to defraud and imprisoned for four years). The Tribunal found that proper supervision would have revealed the true nature of the back-to-back transactions with price uplifts between connected parties where lenders were not informed of material information. No dishonesty was alleged or found against the Respondent, whose failure was one of supervision. The Respondent did not appear and took no part; the hearing proceeded in his absence following service by advertisement. As he was already off the Roll, the only available sanction was a direction under s47(2)(g) prohibiting restoration except by Tribunal order. He was ordered to pay costs of £15,245.73 (representing one-third of the overall costs).

Duties found breached:

Aggravating factors:

  • Failure to supervise allowed a number of fraudulent conveyancing transactions to proceed
  • Failed to question transactions when the Firm was removed from a building society's conveyancing panel
  • City Con work formed a very substantial part of the Firm's income, warranting closer supervision
  • Failed to offer any explanation or account concerning his supervision of Mr Jones

Mitigating factors:

  • No allegation or finding that the Respondent was personally involved in any fraudulent transactions
  • No previous disciplinary findings against the Respondent

Duties engaged

Documents

Source: https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/case/10963-2/