SDT hears claims of improper client-account payments and chaotic governance at Welsh Firm
A Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal has examined allegations that Joseph Edgar Vincent Roe failed to stop improper withdrawals totalling £148,258.58 from a client account and presided over a practice beset by basic governance lapses.
Sitting on 13 January 2020, the panel—Mr R. Nicholas (chair), Mr G. Sydenham and Mrs L. McMahon-Hathway—heard the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s case against Mr Roe, who did not attend and was not represented. Grace Hansen, for the SRA, set out how issues at Brynmawr Law Limited in Ebbw Vale, Wales, spiralled from suspicious payments to broader failures in compliance and management.
The SRA’s first allegation focused on money flows from the client account to a third party identified as VPR between June 2012 and August 2013. Investigators said a series of payments—twelve in all—moved client funds to VPR, despite undertakings to retain estate monies and despite warning signs on the file. The tribunal heard that one executor, JLE, denied ever authorising transfers that appeared to be backed by letters bearing her name. Some of those letters, the SRA said, arrived by fax from a company associated with VPR. By the ninth payment, the client-account balance dipped below the sum due to PS, the other beneficiary—exposing not only JLE’s share but also PS’s entitlement.
Embed from Getty ImagesAccording to the papers, the practice manager, MLB, was in a personal relationship with Mr Roe and played a dominant role on the estate file, yet was neither a solicitor nor formally employed under contract. The SRA said MLB helped “manage the accounts and the business generally”, and that she—and even her son—had access that risked breaches of confidentiality. Mr Roe, the SRA argued, allowed this to happen on his watch.
The second allegation looked at the firm’s day-to-day running from March to December 2016. The SRA alleged missed five-weekly client-account reconciliations, insecure file storage, unrestricted premises access for someone not employed by the firm, and a failure by Mr Roe to discharge the roles of COLP, COFA and MLRO. In short, the regulator said, the basics weren’t done.
Against that backdrop, the SRA pointed to a paper trail: undertakings to hold residual estate funds until accounts were agreed; a ledger showing a cascade of payments to VPR; and subsequent scrambles to reimburse beneficiaries when balances ran thin. Payments back into the client account did occur later—some apparently from VPR—but by then, according to the SRA, the damage had been done: the estate had been raided ahead of any agreed distribution, and PS’s share was encroached upon.
The case summary set out the rules said to be breached: Principles 2, 4, 6 and 10 of the SRA Principles 2011 (integrity, acting in clients’ best interests, public trust, and protection of client money), Outcome 11.2 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011 (performance of undertakings), and Rule 14.5 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011 (no transfers unrelated to underlying legal work). Recklessness was pleaded for the first allegation, though not as an essential ingredient.
The tribunal first dealt with procedure. It noted Mr Roe knew of the hearing and had engaged only to the extent of a medical assessment in mid-2019, which found he could participate with reasonable adjustments. Applying Jones and Adeogba, the panel decided it was fair and in the public interest to proceed in his absence.
What emerges is a stark picture: alleged authorisation letters disputed by the supposed author; undertakings to preserve funds followed by rapid payouts; and an office where controls blurred, lines of responsibility shifted, and oversight faltered. Whether labelled mismanagement or something more troubling, the narrative is the same—client money, meant to be sacrosanct, moved when it should have been held.