§ discipline
‹ Browse decisions

Huw Price

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
BodySolicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT)
Professionsolicitor
Case number11753/2017
Date01/01/2017
OutcomeStrike off

Allegation / charges

Breaches, Failures, Solicitors' Accounts Rules

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

SanctionOther
Dishonesty foundYes

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal heard allegations against Huw Price, a sole practitioner of Valleys Law Solicitors, who did not attend. The Tribunal proceeded in his absence. It found proved that he repeatedly gave false and misleading information to the SRA's Regulatory Supervisor and Forensic Investigation Officer about client account balances and a fictitious cheque allegedly sent to a client (Mrs P), and expressly found that he had acted dishonestly (applying the Ivey test) in respect of allegations 1.1 and 1.2. The Tribunal also found multiple SAR breaches (failing to maintain financial records, conduct reconciliations, return client money promptly - over £20,000 retained), practising as a sole practitioner without authorisation and in breach of practising certificate conditions, and failing to notify the SRA of bankruptcy proceedings/order. The text provided ends before the sanction was recorded.

Duties found breached:

Aggravating factors:

  • Solicitor of 23 years' experience
  • Deliberate strategy to mislead the regulator, repeated on numerous occasions
  • Conduct concerned handling of client money
  • Previously rebuked and fined by Adjudicator on 6 August 2015 for practising without authorisation, yet continued to do so
  • Persisted in lies even when given opportunities to come clean during FIO interview

Mitigating factors:

  • Eventually admitted lying to the FIO during the April 2017 meeting
  • Apologised and acknowledged mistakes
  • Did not contest the allegations and indicated he wished to be removed from the roll
  • Stated he found the closure of the firm difficult to deal with

Duties engaged

Documents

Source: https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/case/11753/