By Ashley Young-
A solicitor who ran his own practice for more than 30 years has been struck off after a finding that he dishonestly took money from a deceased client’s account.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found that Peter Brothwell received an extra £13,000 from overcharging the estate and improperly raising six invoices.
He was also found to have misled the DWP, which was owed money from the estate over an insurance payment of around £3,000 for the client’s jewellery stolen from the firm’s safe.
The crook provided inaccurate information in failing to notify the DWP of the sum in the region of £3,035 to £3,525.72 received in respect of an insurance payment for stolen jewellery, and overstated the legal fees that the Firm had incurred.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal(pictured) said that on or around November and December 2015, the Respondent failed to correct the DWP in respect of the true position of the monies owed to it and/or improperly accepted a
settlement of £3,500.
Brothwell, who was a sole practitioner based in Folkestone, denied acting dishonestly, but the tribunal found he was motivated by personal financial gain and repeated his misconduct over several years.
The tribunal added: ‘The sums involved were not huge, but they represented a significant and high percentage of the value of a modest estate and the harm was nevertheless real.’
Brothwell, a solicitor of 47 years since 1974, was made the client’s main residuary beneficiary after she fell out with relatives. He was gifted around £15,700 by her before she died in 2011 with assets of almost £34,000. Despite advice from the DWP not to distribute the estate until an issue over benefits overpayment had been sorted, he started to make payments in April 2012.
During a three-day hearing earlier this year, the SRA’s costs expert, Marc Banyard, reported that most invoices on the client matter ‘contained a lack of narrative detail’ and were insufficient for any third party to identify what work was being charged for. Some invoices were considered reasonable, but this was deemed a straightforward estate and certain charges were made without any correspondence sent or received and without any indication at all that work had been done.
Mr. Baynard pointed to one invoice of 8 May 2014 which contained a very detailed and comprehensive narrative which he stated could not be criticized. Mr Banyard also concluded that it was unclear from a number of the invoices how the figure charged had been reached.
Analyzing each invoice, Mr Baynard provided an opinion on whether in his view there had been any overcharge. Some of the invoices he considered reasonable or even produced a higher estimated cost than the Respondent had invoiced for.
On others he set out what he considered the amount overcharged was and how he came to that. In summary, Mr Banyard was of the opinion that the estate had been overcharged by £13,110.50. This figure was the total of £4,069.50 alleged to have been overcharged and £9,041 included in allegedly
improperly raised invoices.
The SRA said Brothwell knew he was not entitled to certain fees and was simply seeking to enrich himself rather than see any more money paid to the DWP as a legitimate creditor.
Brothwell, who was shut down last year and has since retired, criticized the expert’s report and said he had given a credible explanation for the invoices under scrutiny. He vehemently denied that his conduct was dishonest and said the charges were fair and reasonable.
The tribunal found that as an experienced solicitor he knew overcharging was not allowed. It rejected Brothwell’s account that he believed he was entitled to raise the six invoices. The solicitor was struck off and ordered to pay £25,000 costs.
During correspondence in October 2014 and November 2015, about the recovery of overpaid benefits to GGF, the DWP had raised concerns about the level of the Respondent’s fees considering the size of the estate. The Respondent
raised 15 bills between February 2011 and 29 July 2019 relating to the administration
of GGF’s Estate totaling £24,099.60.
A spokesperson from the SRA told The Eye Of Media.Com: ”Anyone who is struck off is not allowed to work in any regulated reserved legal activities, which has to do with giving money to or represented. They can do unregulated work including teaching law for students for example, or helping someone prepare for a court case. In the case of the latter, there is a filter that affords litigants access to a regulated legal representative”.