SDT finds deliberate dishonesty after a solicitor without a practising certificate took money and did no work
A solicitor who took money from a client while unauthorised to practise and failed to carry out the promised legal work has been struck off by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT).
The tribunal found that Gavin Clarke’s actions amounted to “deliberate and sustained dishonesty” and concluded that his conduct was “fundamentally incompatible with continued membership of the profession”. The decision was reached despite mitigation showing that Mr Clarke had been experiencing significant personal difficulties, including a period of homelessness.
Mr Clarke qualified as a solicitor in 2003 and practised primarily in criminal legal aid work. His practising certificate was revoked on 31 January 2022 after he failed to renew it. Shortly after losing authorisation, he was contacted by a woman referred to as Person A, who asked him to assist with an appeal against her partner’s criminal conviction.
The SDT heard that Mr Clarke told Person A he was a solicitor and could help, although he said criminal appeals were not his area of expertise. He claimed he had access to a group of barristers who could undertake the work. He later asserted that a barrister named “Darren Zelazelason” of Lincoln House Chambers in Manchester was acting on the case. The tribunal found that no such barrister existed.
Embed from Getty Images
Between February and April 2022, Person A paid a total of £4,525 into Mr Clarke’s personal bank account. Mr Clarke told her that the payments were largely to cover counsel’s fees. He later said that he had prepared and submitted an application for leave to appeal, sending Person A a photograph of a partially completed appeal form. The form described him as working at “GC Legal”, which the SDT found was not a genuine firm.
When Person A contacted the Court of Appeal to check progress, she was informed that no application had been received. She repeatedly asked Mr Clarke to provide evidence that the appeal had been lodged or to return her money. He did neither, and the matter was reported to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA).
Mr Clarke did not cooperate with the SRA’s investigation but attended the SDT hearing. He admitted four allegations: holding himself out as a solicitor when he was not authorised to practise, obtaining £4,525 from Person A and failing to return it, and holding client money in his personal account rather than a client account. He accepted that striking off was the appropriate outcome.
In mitigation, Mr Clarke told the tribunal that the misconduct occurred during a period of serious personal and professional difficulty. His health deteriorated, his judgement was impaired, and his living arrangements were disrupted, including a period of homelessness. He later completed a programme of rehabilitation and was living in supported accommodation. He also said he intended to make restitution when his financial position allowed.
The SDT accepted that his mitigation and expressions of remorse were genuine and creditworthy. However, it said they did not outweigh the seriousness of the misconduct or its impact on the client and public confidence in the profession. Mr Clarke was struck off. Although the SRA was entitled to its costs, no order was made because he was “effectively impecunious”.