David Jackson & Fleur Palmer

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

Three solicitors at PI Legal Services LLP faced allegations arising from a conveyancing scheme for T property-club investors that bore the hallmarks of large-scale mortgage fraud: lenders were not told of assignments, discounts, cashbacks, the true purchase price or third-party (T) contributions funding deposits. The First and Third Respondents made admissions at the outset under agreed outcomes (the SRA not pursuing dishonesty against them); the First Respondent was suspended until 1 November 2012 with undertakings never to practise again in England and Wales, and the Third Respondent was suspended indefinitely (taking account of her mental health). The contested case proceeded against the Second Respondent (David Jonathan Jackson), the firm's practice manager/sole signing solicitor. The Tribunal found allegations 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 proved and, applying Twinsectra, found dishonesty proved against him, holding the scheme to be dishonest from start to finish. He was struck off the Roll. Costs (schedule £263,918.59) were apportioned: First Respondent 50% up to 8 May 2012 with £50,000 interim, Third Respondent £30,000, and the Second Respondent ordered to pay the balance subject to detailed assessment and a statement of means.

Duties found breached:

• Disclose material information to client
• No conflict between current clients
• No improper use of client money

Aggravating factors:

• Express finding of dishonesty
• Repeated deception of lender clients over a considerable period across numerous matters
• Experienced solicitor (34 years) who had studied the CML Handbook and Green Card and knew the requirements
• Conduct facilitated a large-scale mortgage fraud (e.g. UCB loss of c.£2.79m); CG development involved false 'remortgage' certificates and fictitious bridging loans
• Knew of the circle of funds from December 2006 yet continued to issue misleading certificates of title and false answers to lenders' specific questions

Mitigating factors:

• No previous disciplinary appearances
• Cooperated fully with the investigation and was candid/honest with the Investigation Officer
• Made no secret profit
• Acted partly on instructions of and reliance on his employer (First Respondent) and broker DW
• Sought legal advice (Leading Counsel and H solicitors) about disclosure obligations