A D Hamilton & Another

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

Two partners of Hamilton Ward & Co faced numerous conduct-unbefitting allegations arising from complaints about supervision, complaints-handling, undertakings, client account transfers, overcharging and misleading client care letters. First Respondent Alexander David Hamilton, the dominating managing partner, was found to have committed all allegations, including six conveyancing transactions involving his own company Broadhill Properties Ltd where the Tribunal expressly found his behaviour dishonest (applying Royal Brunei v Tan and Twinsectra v Yardley) for failing to disclose information to institutional lenders and acting amid multiple conflicts of interest. He was struck off and ordered to pay £12,114 costs. The Second Respondent, responsible as a partner but without personal culpability and obstructed by Hamilton, was fined £5,000 and ordered to pay £1,500 costs.

Duties found breached:

• Proper basis for allegations
• No improper communication with the court
• No taking unfair advantage
• Keep client informed and respond promptly
• Complaints procedure and handling
• Proper termination and return of instructions
• No conflict between current clients
• No improper use of client money
• Prompt accounting and return of money
• No obstruction or victimisation of reporters
• No baseless or threatened misconduct report
• Honour professional undertakings
• Not misrepresent regulated status

Aggravating factors:

• Transactions bore hallmarks of mortgage fraud not reported to institutional lenders
• Acted for all parties including his own company Broadhill Properties Ltd (director/majority shareholder) which earned an extraordinarily high rate of interest (1.75% per month)
• Clear conflicts of interest
• Attempted to pressure a client to withdraw complaint to OSS
• Persistent non-response to OSS and clients
• Conduct when faced with disciplinary proceedings underlined that Hamilton is 'a stranger to truth and propriety'
• Dominated and obstructed his partner from proper management

Mitigating factors:

• (Second Respondent) liability was as a principal/partner with strict responsibility but no direct personal culpability
• (Second Respondent) resigned from the partnership once aware of Hamilton's behaviour
• (Second Respondent) intimidated and obstructed by a dominating partner
• (Second Respondent) good record apart from these matters, competence and integrity, community involvement
• (First Respondent) caring full-time for terminally ill partner (raised in his letter)