Hugh F Harris-Evans and Jacqueline N Dell

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

Two solicitors faced allegations arising from a Forensic Investigation Unit inspection. Both were found guilty of failing to maintain properly written-up books of account (Rule 32). The First Respondent, Hugh Francis Harris-Evans, was additionally found to have used misleading notepaper (holding out the branch 'Hamiltons' as a separate firm to suit a mortgage introducer), compromised his standard of work through dependence on introducers, submitted a false and misleading Report on Title, acted in a conflict of interest (failing to ensure a vulnerable 93-year-old client received independent advice), and accepted lender instructions contrary to stated criteria. The Tribunal found he fell well short of the standards of honesty and integrity expected and struck him off the Roll, ordering costs subject to detailed assessment. The Second Respondent, Jacqueline Natalie Dell, a non-equity partner whose only failing was the accounts breach, was reprimanded and ordered to pay £500 towards costs. No express finding of dishonesty was made.

Duties found breached:

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

Aggravating factors:

• Misconduct at the highest end of the scale (First Respondent)
• Misled the public and mortgagee clients
• Preferred interests of introducers to those of clients
• Failed to ensure a vulnerable 93-year-old client received true independent advice despite specific lender instruction
• Failure to put right misleading notepaper after it was brought to his attention
• Heavy dependence on a limited number of introducers leading to loss of sight of duty to clients

Mitigating factors:

• Second Respondent: offence one of omission rather than commission
• Second Respondent cooperated fully with investigators and OSS
• Second Respondent had unblemished record almost to end of career and faced tragic personal circumstances
• Second Respondent's misconduct at lower end of scale; no awareness of First Respondent's other misconduct
• Books of account ultimately put in order; no dishonesty alleged regarding accounts