Deceptive Solicitor Fined £15k For Arrogant Disregard Of Clients Affairs

Deceptive Solicitor Fined £15k For Arrogant Disregard Of Clients Affairs

By Lucy Caulkett-

A lying  solicitor has been fined £15,000 for the  arrogant disregard’ for clients’ affairs
The  solicitor who was deemed incompetent by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA)  as he sought to cover up his mistakes.

David Kingsley Wedge misled clients into thinking their cases were progressing, assuring them steps had been taken which he had failed to take, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal heard. Several complaints were made to the Solicitors Regulation Authority, complaining about their lies.

The tribunal found evidence of dishonesty against the solicitor of 17 years, who did not attend the hearing and was not represented.

In a judgement, the tribunal said: ‘Much of [Wedge’s] conduct was motivated by his desire to cover up his incompetence and his failure to properly progress matters in which he had been instructed. He had displayed a wilful disregard of his professional obligations in the broadest sense. Further, he had an arrogant disregard of his clients’ affairs.’

The tribunal heard that Wedge had lied that his client’s ex-wife had refused to engage with proceedings involving a child case, concealing the fact solicitor had sent her no letters. The tribunal noted that the client lost a year of contact with his daughter. His daughter had been misled into believing her father had not wanted to see her despite the fact her father had paid a large amount of his monthly income in legal fees, leaving him in debt and suffering from depression.

Wedge also  deceived  another client seeking a legal suit against solicitors for professional negligence. He falsely  told  them counsel had been instructed to handle the case. This client was ultimately unable to progress the negligence claim. The tribunal said Wedge was in a position of fiduciary duty to his clients, but he ‘abused that position and took advantage of it’.

Wedge emailed the tribunal to apologise for any distress or upset  caused, claiming it was unintentional, and he would have run the practice differently with hindsight. He had been suffering significant health issues due to stress at the time of the misconduct.

 

Spread the news