Solicitor fined £2k and £5k costs after tribunal finds £6k client loan breached integrity rules.
A solicitor has been fined after the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) ruled that borrowing money from the father of a client created a serious conflict of interest and breached the standards of professional integrity.
Douglas Glyn Charles Frame, admitted to the Roll in 2011, faced allegations brought by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) following a £6,000 payment he received in January 2018. The payment came from Baden Bull, the father of a client whom Frame represented in an employment dispute while working at Hill & Abbott Solicitors.
The SRA alleged that Frame dishonestly told Mr Bull he was self-employed and asked him to send the cheque personally for counsel’s fees, which he then diverted into his own account. It was further alleged that he failed to pay the barrister’s fees, breaching key principles and accounts rules. Dishonesty was treated as an aggravating factor in the charges.
During hearings on 6 and 7 September 2022, the tribunal dismissed the most serious allegations. Allegation 1.1, that he misrepresented being self-employed, was struck out after the tribunal found the evidence too weak. The panel noted that Mr Bull, during cross-examination, conceded Frame had never described himself that way. Allegation 1.2, that he requested money for counsel and pocketed it dishonestly, was also dismissed. The tribunal found the payment had instead been agreed as a personal loan, not a disguised fee.
Embed from Getty ImagesThe tribunal did, however, uphold Allegation 3. It concluded that Frame borrowed £6,000 from Mr Bull, creating an own-interest conflict, and failed to take the mandatory step of advising Mr Bull to obtain independent legal advice. This breach of the SRA Code of Conduct and Principle 6 of the SRA Principles 2011, combined with his failure to repay promptly, amounted to a lack of integrity.
Evidence showed that the £6,000 was paid by cheque at the end of January 2018 and not repaid until January 2019. Counsel’s fees of £4,810 were eventually covered by the firm itself. The tribunal accepted that Frame intended initially to repay through covering counsel’s fees, but when Mr Bull requested an invoice that Frame could not provide, repayment was delayed. Although the money was ultimately returned in full, the delay left Mr Bull out of pocket for almost a year.
The tribunal considered that the solicitor’s conduct subordinated his client’s father’s interests to his own financial needs, particularly since Frame acknowledged that he was under pressure from personal cash-flow problems at the time. The panel noted that his request for a loan was deliberate, not spontaneous, and represented poor judgment for an experienced solicitor.
Despite rejecting dishonesty, the tribunal stressed that borrowing from a client or a client’s relative without independent advice undermines public trust. It found that while the misconduct was serious, suspension or strike-off would be disproportionate. Instead, a significant fine was necessary to reflect the breach and to protect confidence in the profession.
Frame’s financial circumstances were taken into account. Although the tribunal initially considered an £8,000 fine, it reduced this by 80% after reviewing his statement of means. The final penalty imposed was £2,000.
On costs, the SRA sought more than £23,000, but the tribunal cut this substantially, calling the schedule excessive for a case based largely on a single disputed conversation. It assessed reasonable costs at £10,350 before further reducing the amount in light of Frame’s finances and partial success in defeating the more serious allegations. Ultimately, Frame was ordered to pay £5,000 in costs.
The tribunal noted his cooperation, his previously unblemished record, and testimonials from his current employer. However, it emphasised that solicitors must uphold the highest ethical standards even when under personal financial strain. The ruling makes clear that even in the absence of dishonesty, failures around conflicts of interest and integrity attract significant financial sanctions.
The judgment, delivered by chair Ms T Cullen, with Mr P Jones and Mrs L McMahon-Hathway, stands as a warning that borrowing money from clients or their relatives without safeguards is unacceptable in the profession.