SDT expels solicitor who dodged £7,399 insurance bill and ignored regulator’s demands

SDT strikes off boon low for unpaid insurance, broken undertaking and failure to co-operate

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) has struck off London solicitor Boon Low after finding he failed to pay his professional indemnity insurance premium, breached an undertaking to another firm, and did not co-operate with enquiries from the regulator.

In a judgment following a hearing on 13 December 2012, the SDT upheld allegations brought by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) that Mr Low, formerly sole principal of Danny Low & Associates, did not pay the Assigned Risks Pool (ARP) premium due for the 2009/2010 indemnity year and entered policy default. The Tribunal found he also failed to honour a written undertaking given on 8 October 2009 to WS & Co to pay their costs of £2,800 plus VAT in an abortive property transaction. Further, he failed to respond to SRA letters seeking explanations about both matters.

The Tribunal heard that, when attempts at personal service failed, the SRA notified Mr Low of the proceedings by placing an advertisement in the Law Society Gazette. He did not attend and was not represented. The panel, chaired by Mr J. P. Davies with Mrs K. Thompson and Mr S. Howe, ruled that service was effective and proceeded in his absence.

On the insurance issue, the SDT recorded that the ARP—managed for the SRA by Capita—provided time-limited cover for firms unable to secure qualifying insurance on the open market. Under the Solicitors Indemnity Insurance Rules 2009, firms and their principals must pay the premium and remain insured. The first instalment of the £7,399.43 premium fell due on 19 December 2009; Capita had received no payment by the time of the SRA’s Rule 5 Statement. The Tribunal held that failure to pay for more than two months placed the firm in “policy default”, a disciplinary offence under Rule 16.2.

In relation to the undertaking, WS & Co told the SRA the transaction collapsed in May 2010 and they sought payment under Mr Low’s written promise. The SDT found the wording—undertaking to pay costs “whether this matter proceeds to completion”—was clear and effective despite the deal falling through and the subsequent closure of Mr Low’s firm on 9 February 2010. The undertaking remained unfulfilled.

The SRA produced correspondence showing it wrote to Mr Low on 14 February 2011, 9 March 2011, 15 April 2011, 11 May 2011 and 2 June 2011. He sent a single reply on 17 March 2011 asking for 14 days to retrieve the file, then failed to respond. The Tribunal concluded he had not engaged “in an open, prompt and co-operative way”, breaching Rule 20.05 of the Solicitors’ Code of Conduct 2007.

The SDT also noted Mr Low’s prior appearances before the Tribunal. In 2008 (case 9882/2008), he admitted accounts rule breaches, a client account shortage and conduct unbefitting a solicitor, receiving a fine and costs. In 2009 (case 10329/2009), he admitted multiple Code and Accounts Rules breaches, resulting in a six-month suspension and costs. While some events in the present case pre-dated the 2009 matter, the panel viewed his repeated failures to address regulatory concerns as aggravating.

Assessing culpability and harm, the SDT held Mr Low bore direct responsibility: he did not pay the ARP premium, breached a clear undertaking and ignored regulatory correspondence. The non-payment left the profession to absorb the unpaid premium across the market and potentially complicated claims against his former practice. The broken undertaking, the panel said, damaged trust in the profession.

Finding that public protection required removal from practice, the SDT ordered that Mr Boon Low be struck off the Roll of Solicitors. It also made a £4,000 costs order in favour of the SRA, to not be enforced without the Tribunal’s permission, noting Mr Low had not participated and the order deprived him of the ability to work in the profession.

Decision: Struck off the Roll; Costs: £4,000 (enforcement only with leave).