Skip to main content
discipline 3 October 2026
‹ Browse decisions

Decision record

David Ellis Charity

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
BodySolicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT)
Professionsolicitor
Case number8958/2003
Date01/01/2003
OutcomeSuspend - Indefinite

Allegation / charges

Breaches, Criminal Convictions, Failures, Solicitors' Accounts Rules, Others

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

SanctionSuspension
CostsGBP 10,558
Dishonesty foundNo

David Ellis Charity, a sole practitioner admitted in 1966, faced ten allegations of conduct unbefitting a solicitor including failure to produce accounting records, failure to deliver Accountant's Reports, permitting a non-solicitor to be sole signatory on the client account, breaches of indemnity rules, holding himself out as a practising solicitor without a certificate, writing an insulting letter to another solicitor, a drink-driving conviction, failing to account to clients, failing to reply to the OSS, and abandoning his practice. The Tribunal found all allegations substantiated. Although it considered striking off, given the Respondent's reported mental and physical infirmity and his intention to retire, it ordered indefinite suspension and costs of £10,557.74. No express finding of dishonesty was made (conduct described as conscious impropriety and blatant misconduct).

Duties found breached:

Aggravating factors:

  • Failure to account for client monies
  • Holding out as a solicitor when not holding a Practising Certificate - conscious impropriety/blatant misconduct
  • Wide range of allegations of conduct unbefitting
  • Abandonment of practice leading to intervention
  • Insulting letter to elderly client's solicitor bringing disgrace on profession

Mitigating factors:

  • Respondent's mental and physical infirmity as reported by his son
  • References to head injury and consequent ill health
  • Short-lived and small practice
  • Respondent content to retire from practice

Duties engaged

Documents

Source: https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/case/8958/