Hugh F Harris-Evans and Jacqueline N Dell

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

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the First Respondent, Hugh Francis Harris-Evans, guilty of serious misconduct including failing to maintain proper books of account, using misleading notepaper (a sham branch office 'Hamiltons' set up for one introducer), compromising his standard of work, submitting a false Report on Title, acting in a conflict of interest involving a vulnerable elderly client, and accepting lender instructions contrary to stated criteria. He was found to have preferred introducers' interests over clients and misled mortgagee clients. He was struck off the Roll and ordered to pay costs (to be assessed). The tribunal referred to him falling short of standards of honesty and integrity but made no express finding of dishonesty; no dishonesty was alleged regarding the accounts. The Second Respondent, Jacqueline Natalie Dell, admitted only the accounts breach as a partner; given her limited role, cooperation, unblemished record and difficult personal circumstances, she was reprimanded and ordered to pay £500 costs.

Duties found breached:

• Non-discriminatory acceptance and cab-rank
• No own-interest conflict
• No conflict between current clients
• Handle inadvertently received material
• Accounting records, reconciliation and reports
• No baseless or threatened misconduct report

Aggravating factors:

• Acting for a vulnerable 93-year-old client who did not receive genuine independent advice despite lender's instruction
• Preferring the interests of introducers of work over those of clients
• Failing to verify client identity leading to a forged signature blocking repossession proceedings
• Failing to correct the misleading notepaper after it was brought to his attention
• Heavy dependence on a limited number of introducers, losing sight of duty to clients

Mitigating factors:

• Second Respondent's conduct at lower end of scale, an offence of omission not commission
• Second Respondent admitted the allegation and cooperated fully with investigators
• Second Respondent's long unblemished career and tragic personal circumstances
• Second Respondent was not an equity partner and had no access to the accounts