Hatch - Clerey - Macdonald

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

SDT case 11016-2012. Three respondents: solicitors Victor Hatch and Robert Clerey, and unadmitted person Dr Hugh MacDonald. Hatch and Clerey admitted wide-ranging misconduct including conveyancing failures, breaches of undertakings, SAR 1998 breaches, and (Clerey) misappropriation of client legacy money, overcharging and taking unfair advantage of a third party. Both admitted recklessness. The SRA did not pursue the dishonesty allegation against Clerey, which was left to lie on the file; no express finding of dishonesty was made against any respondent. The Tribunal rejected the parties' agreed outcome of voluntary removal from the Roll and struck both solicitors off. Hatch was ordered to pay £28,000 costs and Clerey £40,000. The s.43 allegation against MacDonald was dismissed as not proved beyond reasonable doubt (the Tribunal found his fee-sharing arrangement compliant with Rule 7(1A) SPR 1990 and that he had effectively whistle-blown), with no costs order against him.

Duties found breached:

• No abuse of process or coercive powers
• No taking unfair advantage
• Not mislead third parties or opponents
• No conflict between current clients
• No improper use of client money
• Honour professional undertakings
• No improper solicitation or touting

Aggravating factors:

• Both Respondents had previous appearances before the Tribunal (First Respondent fined in 2004; Second Respondent reprimanded and fined in 1997)
• Utmost seriousness of breaches including misappropriation of client money and repeated breaches of undertakings
• Second Respondent's complete failure to manage his practice and multiple SAR breaches

Mitigating factors:

• First Respondent aged 68, retired, in poor health, self-reported suspicions of Second Respondent's misconduct and cooperated fully
• Second Respondent aged 70, in ill health, admitted all allegations and recklessness, accepted he should not practise again
• Both had made full admissions

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