Victor Richard Stockinger

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

Victor Stockinger, a sole practitioner solicitor admitted in 1990, faced allegations arising from failing to comply with two county court costs orders, making offensive racially/ethnically/religiously motivated comments to junior attendees at a SAHCA legal event on 12 June 2019, and failing to cooperate with the SRA investigation (including providing inaccurate/misleading information). The Tribunal found allegation 1.1 proved (breach of Principle 6 and Outcome 5.3), rejecting his 'lien' argument. It found the SAHCA-event allegations (1.2/1.3) proved as breaches of Principles 2, 6 and 9, finding the comments racially/ethnically/religiously motivated. On the cooperation allegations, it found breaches of Principle 7 and Code paragraphs 7.3/7.4 and Outcomes 10.6/10.8/10.9. It made one express finding of dishonesty (allegation 1.4.2 - falsely stating he had lodged an appeal against Client A's order) and a finding of recklessness on 1.4.3. Other integrity findings were made under Wingate. Given the dishonesty finding combined with numerous other serious findings, the Tribunal determined the cumulative conduct was of the highest seriousness and ordered the Respondent be struck off the Roll and pay costs of £41,850. A later appeal was struck out by Farbey J on 15 May 2023.

Duties found breached:

• Comply with and respect court orders
• Integrity
• Not mislead third parties or opponents
• Uphold public trust in the profession
• Non-discriminatory acceptance and cab-rank
• Cooperate openly with regulators
• Good faith and courtesy to colleagues

Aggravating factors:

• High culpability - Respondent was a highly experienced solicitor
• Deliberately misled his regulator
• Repeated delays and incomplete responses to the regulator over several months
• Pattern of non-compliance and obfuscation
• Racially, ethnically and religiously motivated comments displaying lack of respect for diversity
• Limited insight; repeatedly blamed others (former clients, the regulator, and complainants alleged to be acting in bad faith)
• Foreseeable harm to individuals and to the reputation of the profession

Mitigating factors:

• Otherwise unblemished disciplinary record over a long (30-year) career
• Belated payment of the principal sums due under the costs orders (though not the interest)
• Misconduct limited to three distinct episodes
• Made various factual admissions at an early stage
• Apologised for the upset caused at the SAHCA event
• Impact of the dishonest statement lessened as the same letter also correctly stated no stay had been sought and that documents were not to hand
• Some effect of Covid-19 restrictions on access to files