Hatch - Clerey - Macdonald

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

Three respondents faced SDT proceedings arising from misconduct at Clereys/Macdonald Law Associates LLP. The First Respondent (Hatch) admitted six allegations including failures to lender clients, untrue confirmations and an indemnity insurance default. The Second Respondent (Clerey) admitted fifteen allegations including breaches of undertakings, misappropriation of client legacy money, overcharging and numerous Accounts Rules breaches; he admitted recklessness but the alternative dishonesty allegation was left to lie on the file (no express finding of dishonesty). The Tribunal found all allegations against the First and Second Respondents proved and, rejecting the agreed 'voluntary removal' outcomes, struck both off the Roll. The Section 43 allegation against the Third Respondent (MacDonald, an unadmitted investor) was dismissed, the Tribunal finding his fee-sharing arrangement compliant with Rule 7(1A) and that he had effectively whistle-blown. Costs of £28,000 were ordered against the First Respondent and £40,000 against the Second Respondent; no order for costs against the Third Respondent.

Duties found breached:

• No taking unfair advantage
• Not mislead third parties or opponents
• Disclose material information to client
• Fair, reasonable and lawful fees
• No conflict between current clients
• No improper use of client money
• Professional indemnity insurance
• Honour professional undertakings
• No improper solicitation or touting

Aggravating factors:

• Both Respondents had previous appearances before the Tribunal (First Respondent fined in 2004 for conduct unbefitting; Second Respondent reprimanded and fined in 1997 for SAR breaches and conflict of interest)
• Seriousness and range of breaches including breaches of undertakings (the 'bedrock' of conveyancing) and misappropriation of client funds
• Admitted recklessness by both Respondents

Mitigating factors:

• First Respondent reported suspected misconduct to the Applicant and police; full cooperation with investigation
• Both Respondents of advanced age (68 and 70) with poor health
• Second Respondent admitted all allegations save dishonesty and accepted he should not practise again
• Second Respondent was a discharged bankrupt and described as a 'broken man'

⚠ figures not found verbatim in the source were dropped: ["unverified_costs_amount=68000", "review_dishonesty_finding_cue_present"]