Civil Enforcement County Court claim

[Quark]

Re: Civil Enforcement County Court claim

What were your findings re Mr Swartz and the SRA?

[mystery1]

Re: Civil Enforcement County Court claim

quarkdefence.odt

Edit to suit, particularly any denials of being driver if inaccurate and the date.

M1

[mystery1]

Re: Civil Enforcement County Court claim

What were your findings re Mr Swartz and the SRA?

He hasn't applied for permission to act in employment. They are investigating. Once everyone has defences filed i'll recommend complaining to SRA officially. Such as found here and here.

M1



Thank you for your email of 22 February 2016.


Mr Michael David Schwartz (SRA number 118966) was admitted to the roll of solicitors of England and Wales on 15 March 1979 and holds a current practising certificate with the following conditions: Mr Michael David Schwartz's current practising certificate has been made subject to the following conditions pursuant to Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011:

Mr Schwartz shall act as a solicitor only in employment, the arrangements for which have been approved by the SRA.
Mr Schwartz is not to be a recognised sole practitioner, manager or owner of an authorised body.
Mr Schwartz shall not hold, receive or have access to client money, or act as a signatory to any client or office account, or have the power to authorise payments in or out of any client or office account or any transfers from any client or office account.
Mr Schwartz shall immediately inform any actual or prospective employer of these conditions and the reasons for them.
In these conditions the definitions are as defined in the SRA Handbook Glossary 2012.

Reasons/basis

On 24 November 2014 the SRA raised the following allegations against Mr Schwartz:

Whilst he was employed as a consultant by "The Sethi Partnership Solicitors" from 20 December 2012 to 1 July 2013 he failed to pay client money received on account of costs into the firm's client account in breach of Rule 14.1 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011 and in breach of SRA Principles 2, 4, 5, 6 and 10.
On 24 July 2013 Mr Schwartz was arrested and subsequently charged with an offence of causing the transmission of an image/sound from prison contrary to Section 40 of the Prison Act 1952. Although he was subsequently acquitted, he failed to notify the SRA of his arrest and charge at the time in breach of Outcome 10.3 and SRA Principle 7. In view of the above and other suspected misconduct, including trading as an authorised sole practitioner in or around 2012, the above conditions have been imposed on Mr Schwartz's current practising certificate.
The above conditions are considered to be necessary in the public interest and reasonable and proportionate having regard to the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 and the regulatory objectives and principles governing regulatory activities as contained in section 28 of the Legal Services Act 2007..

There are Findings and Orders that have been made by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) against Michael David Schwartz. Please call the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal on 0207 329 4808 for more information.

Please note that if a matter is due to be heard before the SDT, details can be found on our website at www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check.page. If this is the case, we are unable to discuss the matter with you.

Our records indicate that Mr Schwartz is not currently practising. If this is incorrect, you may wish to report Mr Schwartz to us by following the report form process detailed in our previous correspondence.

If you have any further queries, please Contact us.




Thank you for contacting the Solicitors Regulation Authority.


Yours sincerely



Joseph Sheppard
Contact Centre Officer
Solicitors Regulation Authority
0370 606 2555
contactcentre@sra.org.uk
www.sra.org.uk

[Quark]

Re: Civil Enforcement County Court claim

Dear M1

The claimant did not respond to my defence within 28 days, the case has been stayed.

[mystery1]

Re: Civil Enforcement County Court claim

A stay means that the claim is on hold.


The good news however is that to lift a stay should require an application which would cost either £100 without a hearing or £255 with a hearing, which for the sums claimed would be utter nonsense since they would have to bear all costs as the party responsible. (unless there is an admin cock up by the court)


I would wait 3/4 weeks to see if they or the court contact you and if they don't write a little email to the court to see if they'll boot the claim out.


M1