Tweet
April Alison Chamberlain, Peter Ian Foxall and Timothy John Wilkinson
Thursday 09 July 2009
The SDT ordered that the first respondent (admitted 1997), of Burr Sugden, 23-27 Devonshire Street, Keighley, West Yorkshire, should be reprimanded; that the second respondent (admitted 1987), of the same address, should be reprimanded; and that the third respondent (admitted 1972), of the same address, should be reprimanded.
The respondents had rewarded introducers of work, by the payment of commission or otherwise, contrary to section 2(3) of the Solicitors Introduction and Referral Code 1990; they had failed to carry out the required review of referral arrangements with an introducer of work, namely The Claims Doctor Ltd (CDL), contrary to section 2(10) of the code; they had failed to maintain a record of agreement(s) with CDL and My Claim for the introduction of work, contrary to section 2(9) of the code; they had failed to obtain an undertaking(s) from CDL and My Claim indicating that the introducer would comply with the terms of the code contrary to section 2A(2) of the code; they had failed to provide all relevant information to clients upon receipt of referrals, to include the amount payable for the referral, contrary to section 2A(3) of the code; and they had failed to satisfy themselves that the introducer(s) had provided clients with all relevant information before the referral had taken place, and as to how the introducer(s) had acquired the client, contrary to section 2A(4) of the code.
The SDT was concerned that the firm had breached the code at a time when there was a ban on referral fees, and the payments made by the firm to the named companies amounted to referral fees.
The SDT, however, felt it appropriate to apply a proportionate penalty, bearing in mind that the firm had not allowed itself to be drawn into the kind of dealings with such companies which in other cases had caused damage to the profession’s reputation. The firm had demonstrated that it had applied some degree of judgement and had not gone down the route that some firms had done of being beholden to such companies for referrals. The firm had given an impressive account of itself so far as client care issues were concerned.
The SDT ordered that the respondents pay costs agreed and fixed in the sum of £12,000, on a joint and several basis.
source: The Law Gazette
Thursday 09 July 2009
- Application 10021-2008
- Hearing 12 February 2009
- Reasons 12 May 2009
The SDT ordered that the first respondent (admitted 1997), of Burr Sugden, 23-27 Devonshire Street, Keighley, West Yorkshire, should be reprimanded; that the second respondent (admitted 1987), of the same address, should be reprimanded; and that the third respondent (admitted 1972), of the same address, should be reprimanded.
The respondents had rewarded introducers of work, by the payment of commission or otherwise, contrary to section 2(3) of the Solicitors Introduction and Referral Code 1990; they had failed to carry out the required review of referral arrangements with an introducer of work, namely The Claims Doctor Ltd (CDL), contrary to section 2(10) of the code; they had failed to maintain a record of agreement(s) with CDL and My Claim for the introduction of work, contrary to section 2(9) of the code; they had failed to obtain an undertaking(s) from CDL and My Claim indicating that the introducer would comply with the terms of the code contrary to section 2A(2) of the code; they had failed to provide all relevant information to clients upon receipt of referrals, to include the amount payable for the referral, contrary to section 2A(3) of the code; and they had failed to satisfy themselves that the introducer(s) had provided clients with all relevant information before the referral had taken place, and as to how the introducer(s) had acquired the client, contrary to section 2A(4) of the code.
The SDT was concerned that the firm had breached the code at a time when there was a ban on referral fees, and the payments made by the firm to the named companies amounted to referral fees.
The SDT, however, felt it appropriate to apply a proportionate penalty, bearing in mind that the firm had not allowed itself to be drawn into the kind of dealings with such companies which in other cases had caused damage to the profession’s reputation. The firm had demonstrated that it had applied some degree of judgement and had not gone down the route that some firms had done of being beholden to such companies for referrals. The firm had given an impressive account of itself so far as client care issues were concerned.
The SDT ordered that the respondents pay costs agreed and fixed in the sum of £12,000, on a joint and several basis.
source: The Law Gazette
Comment