Tweet
Re: Claim form Northampton court (civil enforcement ltd)
They really are clueless.
Dear SRA,
Thank you for your reply of xxx the contents of which are noted.
Your email contradicts the information on YOUR website. http://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/soli...cle?Decision-2
Decision - control of practice
Outcome: Condition
Outcome date: 14 August 2015
Published date: 21 September 2015
Firm details
Firm or organisation at time of matters giving rise to outcome
Name: The Sethi Partnership Solicitors
Address(es):
The Barn House, 38 Meadow Way, Ruislip, Middlesex, HA4 8TB
Firm ID: 78533
Outcome details
This outcome was reached by SRA decision.
Decision details
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.
Please can you confirm if these restrictions are still in place and if the SRA has received and approved his employment with Civil Enforcement limited.
Yours Sincerely
M1
They really are clueless.
Dear SRA,
Thank you for your reply of xxx the contents of which are noted.
Your email contradicts the information on YOUR website. http://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/soli...cle?Decision-2
Decision - control of practice
Outcome: Condition
Outcome date: 14 August 2015
Published date: 21 September 2015
Firm details
Firm or organisation at time of matters giving rise to outcome
Name: The Sethi Partnership Solicitors
Address(es):
The Barn House, 38 Meadow Way, Ruislip, Middlesex, HA4 8TB
Firm ID: 78533
Outcome details
This outcome was reached by SRA decision.
Decision details
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.
Please can you confirm if these restrictions are still in place and if the SRA has received and approved his employment with Civil Enforcement limited.
Yours Sincerely
M1
Comment