§ discipline
‹ Back

Andrew John Chatterton

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
BodySolicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT)
Professionsolicitor
Case number12450/2023
Date26/07/2023
OutcomeFine

Allegation / charges

Breaches, Failures

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

SanctionFine
FineGBP 20,000
CostsGBP 4,496
Dishonesty foundNo

Andrew John Chatterton, an experienced solicitor at Foys Solicitors, acted for attorneys (Clients B and C) acting under a lasting power of attorney for vulnerable Client A in the purchase of five properties using over £769,000 of Client A's funds, registering each property as tenants in common so that the attorneys gained half-shares, causing Client A a financial loss of £384,949.50. He failed to recognise the obvious conflict of interest and significant risk of conflict, made no checks on the validity of instructions or Client A's wishes. He admitted breaches of Principles 4, 5, 6 and 10 and failures to achieve Outcomes 1.2 and 3.5. The Tribunal, dealing with the matter on the papers via Agreed Outcome, placed the conduct in Indicative Fine Band Level 4 (very serious) and imposed a £20,000 fine plus £4,496 costs. No dishonesty was alleged or found; the misconduct was described as a lack of probity and inadequate practice rather than dishonest conduct.

Duties found breached:

Aggravating factors:

  • Conduct continued over a period (July 2015 to May 2016) across five property transactions
  • Pattern of misconduct across all five transactions
  • Substantial client funds put at risk
  • Attorneys' wrongdoing went undetected by Respondent and could have continued but for anonymous note to OPG
  • Client A was vulnerable; wishes never confirmed or independently verified
  • Funds for all transactions came solely from Client A with no contribution from Clients B or C

Mitigating factors:

  • Misconduct not calculated or deliberate; no financial gain beyond ordinary fees
  • Respondent was to an extent a victim of the attorneys' deception
  • Good character with 40 years of practice without regulatory incident
  • Cooperated with the SRA investigation
  • Has retired with no intention to return to practice
  • Showed insight and expressed remorse

Documents

Source: https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/case/12450/