Chandra Soares

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

The appellant attorney was retained on the sale of the complainant's property (actual price $35.5m) but drafted the agreement showing $25.5m and paid the complainant only $14m of the $21.98m due, leaving a shortfall of $7.98m. She had used clients' funds over about two years to pay 'sow seed' money to her church. She later repaid the shortfall with interest and costs. Although the complainant sought to withdraw the complaint, the Disciplinary Committee refused, citing its duty to protect the public and the profession, and found breaches of Canon VII(b)(ii) and Canon I(b), including knowing conversion of client funds. It struck her off the roll. The Court of Appeal held the refusal to allow withdrawal was proper and that the strike-off sanction was not plainly wrong, dismissing the appeal with costs to the respondent (to be taxed if not agreed).

Duties found breached:

• Uphold public trust in the profession
• No improper use of client money

Aggravating factors:

• Not an isolated incident - course of conduct spanning at least two years using clients' funds to pay 'sow seed' money to her church
• Drafted the agreement for sale to understate the purchase price, depriving the revenue of income
• Serious breach of trust reposed by the client, bringing the profession into disrepute
• Preparation of a promissory note never shown to or agreed by the complainant

Mitigating factors:

• Full repayment of shortfall to complainant with commercial interest (15.875%) and legal costs prior to the hearing
• Previously unblemished career of 25 years in practice
• Complainant twice requested in writing to withdraw the complaint and stated the matter was satisfactorily settled
• Appellant gained no personal benefit from the understated agreement