§ discipline
‹ Browse decisions

David Morrell

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
BodySolicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT)
Professionsolicitor
Case number10381/2009
Date01/01/2009
OutcomeStrike off

Allegation / charges

Breaches, Client Money, Solicitors' Accounts Rules

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

SanctionStrike Off
CostsGBP 17,500
Dishonesty foundYes

David Morrell, a solicitor admitted in 1977 practising at Molesworths Bright Clegg, was found to have, over a period from 1998 to 2008, misled probate clients about the value and marketing of properties, sold properties to associates/friends at potential undervalue, failed to disclose his own financial interest and conflicts where he acted for both buyer and seller, and made unauthorised transfers of client money to fund purchases and family trust matters for personal gain. His own handwritten notes admitting wrongdoing corroborated the FIO findings. Applying the Twinsectra test, the Tribunal found his conduct dishonest. Despite mitigation (serious family illness, mental health pressures, full engagement, recompense to firm), the Tribunal ordered him struck off the Roll and to pay agreed costs of £17,500.

Duties found breached:

Aggravating factors:

  • Misconduct took place over a long period of approximately 10 years (1998-2008)
  • Acted for personal gain and for the benefit of his family and associates
  • Misled clients and failed to disclose conflicts of interest and his own financial interest
  • Used client funds without authority

Mitigating factors:

  • Significant personal and family pressures including wife's serious genetic illness
  • Suffered an adjustment disorder with depression and anxiety
  • Engaged with the disciplinary process and provided detailed statement and medical report
  • Frankly admitted conduct was unacceptable
  • Made substantial recompense/payment to the firm
  • No previous disciplinary findings
  • Stated intention never to practise again

Duties engaged

Documents

Source: https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/case/10381/