Skip to main content
discipline 3 October 2026
‹ Browse decisions

Decision record

Andrew John Chatterton

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
BodySolicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT)
Professionsolicitor
Case number12450/2023
Date26/07/2023
OutcomeFine

Allegation / charges

Breaches, Failures

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

SanctionFine
FineGBP 20,000
CostsGBP 4,496
Dishonesty foundNo

Andrew John Chatterton, an experienced solicitor admitted in 1981, admitted three allegations arising from acting on five property purchases (2015-2016) instructed by attorneys (Clients B and C) under an LPA for vulnerable Client A. He failed to recognise conflicts of interest and that the transactions amounted to gifts of half of Client A's property interests to the attorneys, causing Client A a financial loss of £384,949.50. He made no checks with Client A. The Tribunal, on an agreed outcome dealt with on the papers, found no dishonesty, breaches of Principles 4, 5, 6 and 10 and Code outcomes 1.2 and 3.5, and imposed a £20,000 fine (Level 4) plus £4,496 costs.

Duties found breached:

Aggravating factors:

  • Conduct continued over a period of time (July 2015 to May 2016) across five property transactions
  • Pattern of misconduct with similarities across all five transactions
  • Attorneys' wrongdoing was not identified and could have continued but for anonymous note to OPG
  • Substantial amounts of client funds put at risk
  • Funds came solely from Client A's accounts with no contribution from Clients B or C
  • Client A was vulnerable
  • Lack of probity resulted in OPG intervention, deputy instruction and contested Court of Protection proceedings

Mitigating factors:

  • Respondent believed the shares were held by attorneys as agents for Client A
  • Respondent genuinely believed attorneys were acting in Client A's best interests
  • Respondent was deceived by Client B
  • No evidence Client A's care home fees were unpaid or that she suffered actual detriment; attorneys were beneficiaries of her estate
  • Good character with 40 years of practice without regulatory incident
  • Cooperated with the SRA investigation and retired from practice with no intention to return
  • Showed insight and expressed remorse
  • Misconduct not calculated or deliberate; no financial gain beyond ordinary fees

Duties engaged

Documents

Source: https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/case/12450/