Tribunal hears vidal martin procured £4,700 cheque, misled investigators, and betrayed clients
A London solicitor has been found guilty of serious professional misconduct after a tribunal ruled she misappropriated client money, gave false statements to investigators, and engaged in improper estate dealings spanning years.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT), sitting from 5 to 19 November 2019, heard the case against Vidal Eulalie Martin, then a sole practitioner at V Martin Legal Services in Romford and a notary public. Represented by Nicola Newbegin, she faced a battery of allegations brought by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA). Giles Wheeler appeared for the regulator.
At the centre of the case was a £4,700 cheque written by Ms X, a residuary beneficiary in the estate of Ms M. On 4 January 2011, following a burst water tank incident at the deceased’s property, Ms X attended the firm. The SRA alleged Martin asked for a cheque to cover repairs. But no works were ever carried out, and the estate accounts made no mention of repair costs. Instead, the cheque was paid into Martin’s personal Nationwide account and quickly spent.
The tribunal noted Martin’s explanations shifted over time—from denying the account was hers, to claiming the bank told her the cheque had been returned, to suggesting she was owed the money personally. Nationwide bank records proved otherwise. The SDT ruled she had procured the cheque, failed to pay it into client account, failed to record it, and dealt with the money as her own.
Embed from Getty ImagesThe panel found her actions breached multiple provisions: Rules 1 and 15 of the 1998 Solicitors Accounts Rules, and Rules 1.02 (integrity), 1.04 (clients’ best interests), and 1.06 (public trust) of the 2007 Code. Applying the Ivey v Genting Casinos dishonesty test, the tribunal held that ordinary decent people would view her conduct as dishonest.
The cheque episode was only one strand. The tribunal also considered evidence that Martin:
- Raised an unjustified £64.75 bill against an estate.
- Failed to dispose of shareholdings in another estate before leaving her firm in 2015.
- Channelled estate funds to C & Co, a business linked to her children’s relatives, without disclosing conflicts of interest or obtaining competitive quotes.
- Authorised a £5,400 payment to an individual misrepresented as connected to a surveying firm.
- Bought a client’s motor car at an undervalue without executor approval.
- Arranged the sale of a vulnerable client’s car to a relative of her children, inflating the recorded sale price from £6,400 to £8,500.
- Billed excessive or unjustified costs to disguise other payments in an estate.
In each case, the SRA argued Martin abused her position of trust, manipulated estate accounts, or concealed her conflicts. Dishonesty was alleged in all but one of the charges.
Martin’s defence was that she neither knew about the disputed cheque nor acted dishonestly, pointing to investigation delays, inconsistent evidence from Ms X, and procedural unfairness. Her counsel argued the SRA’s case was tainted by unreliable witnesses and failures to preserve vital banking records.
The SDT was not persuaded. It concluded Martin’s evidence lacked credibility, describing her as evasive and inconsistent, while Ms X’s account—despite flaws—was corroborated by the existence of the cheque and the bank trail. The panel dismissed Martin’s claim that she was unaware of the money entering her account, noting more than £2,200 was spent from it within weeks.
On 19 November 2019, the tribunal found dishonesty proved. Martin appealed, but the Divisional Court (Simler LJ and Picken J) dismissed her challenge in December 2020. A further application for permission to appeal was refused by Lord Justice Males in April 2021. The findings now stand.
The judgment underlines the SRA’s zero-tolerance stance on solicitors who mishandle client money and compromise public trust. For Martin, once entrusted with managing estates, the tribunal’s ruling represents the collapse of her professional reputation.