By Chris Williamson-
A former firm owner whose firm invoiced for stamp duty and then kept hold of the money has been fined £20,000.Mohit Chopra, sole equity partner with defunct London firm Miramar Legal, had signed the invoice for more than £3,000 to cover stamp duty and the land registration fee after the firm acted on a property purchase in 2013.
However, the money was transferred from the client account to the office account before the process was completed, Only after the client tried to sell the property five years later, did it emerge that neither the stamp duty nor Land Registry fees had been paid.
Chopra arranged for payment of the outstanding items and replaced the remaining cash shortage on the client account.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal ruled over a complaint in which the alleged conduct spanned six years, and in which the firm made overpayments on 18 client matters, for amounts varying from 25p to £1,141, from the client account. These were not paid back in some cases for several years and investigators found debit balances worth £4,439 as of September 2018 (these were rectified by Chopra).
The misconduct was wide ranging.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal discovered that between 20 and 21 August 2015, the offending solicitor caused or allowed an improper transfer of £3,184.12 from the client account to the office account, in respect of invoice 3240 on Client Matter A and thereby breached Rule 20.1 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011 (“the SARs 2011”) and Principles 6 and 10 of the SRA Principles 2011 (“the Principles”).
They also found that between approximately September 2012 and August 2018, he caused or allowed money to be withdrawn from the Firm’s client account that exceeded money held for those clients and thereby breached Rule 20.6 of the SARs 2011 and Principle 10 of the Principles.
Between approximately May 2014 and February 2019, he failed to maintain accurate accounting records and thereby breached Rule 29.1 of the SARs 2011.
The SRA was required to prove the allegations on the balance of probabilities. The Tribunal had due regard to its statutory duty, under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, to act in a manner which was compatible with Mr Chopra’s rights to a fair trial and to respect for his private and family life under Articles 6 and 8 of the European
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
.The Tribunal assessed the culpability and harm identified together with the aggravating and mitigating factors that existed.
Mr Chopra had admitted liability and responsibility for the improper transfers and failures to protect client
money and to scrupulously meet the requirements of the SARs. Given his role in the Firm, he had direct control over the circumstances of the admitted misconduct.
The admitted breaches were very serious, undermined public trust and Mr Chopra was on notice of these issues given the references within the Accountants’ Reports. He did thereafter make good the shortfalls and no client lost out financially.
Chopra, admitted in 2008, submitted a ‘slow moving matters report’ to the SRA’s team, listing over 1,700 matters that had not moved for at least a year. Officers noted there were 199 balances as of August 2020 that were the same as they had been 21 months earlier, breaching the SRA rule that client money must be returned as soon as there is no longer a proper reason to hold it.
Chopra admitted that he was liable for the shortage on the client account. He also admitted to being aware of breaches of accounts rules but failing to rectify them in a timely manner. In mitigation he pointed out that all shortages were made good on discovery.
The SDT authorised the £20k fine agreed between the SRA and Ms Chopra. Chopra must also pay £15,735 costs and may not own any other firm or hold client money.
Cases involving solicitor fraud are becoming more common these days, and have been relatively rife in the past few years. Solicitors in general in the Uk are law abiding and very professional, but there are an increasing number who are bringing their profession to disrepute.
The Solicitor Disciplinary Tribunal dealt with seven other cases of misconduct of solicitors in the last week.
Once found guilty, most solicitors are either fined or struck off- in some cases both.