§ discipline
‹ Browse decisions

Terrence Ballard

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
BodySolicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT)
Professionsolicitor
Case number11397/2015
Date01/01/2015
OutcomeFine

Allegation / charges

Breaches, Failures

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

SanctionFine
FineGBP 2,500
CostsGBP 18,000
Dishonesty foundNo

Terrence Ballard, a solicitor whose practising certificate was subject to a condition that he could not be a sole practitioner or sole director, acted privately for Mr DE in criminal proceedings for a £750 fixed fee. The Tribunal found he breached his PC condition by addressing Brighton & Hove Magistrates' Court on 5 August 2013 on his own account (recorded as 'attending solicitor') without obtaining McKenzie Friend/exempt person permission (Principle 7); failed to clearly set out the terms/scope of his retainer and the risk Mr DE would be unrepresented at trial, and terminated the retainer in an intemperate/unprofessional manner (Principles 4, 5 and 6); and refused to comply with a Legal Ombudsman direction and County Court order to pay Mr DE for over two years (Principle 7). Allegation 1.2 (operating a prohibited separate business) was not proved as acting for Mr DE was a one-off. No dishonesty was alleged or found. The Tribunal imposed a £2,500 fine and £18,000 costs; on appeal the fine was increased to £6,000.

Duties found breached:

Aggravating factors:

  • Refusal to comply with the Ombudsman's order continued over a period of more than two years, including after a County Court order made in May 2014
  • Continued refusal to pay while taking no steps to seek adjudication, displaying a lack of insight into the misconduct

Mitigating factors:

  • No previous disciplinary findings against the Respondent
  • Desire to provide legal services to clients more cheaply than solicitors
  • No adverse comments regarding the Respondent's competence as a solicitor
  • Misconduct in acting for Mr DE was not planned

Duties engaged

Documents

Source: https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/case/11397/