Tribunal punishes Hutchins and McGuire for misconduct in RSPCA-linked trust scandal.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) has imposed serious sanctions on two solicitors after finding misconduct in their handling of a trust linked to the RSPCA. Christopher Frederick Orford Hutchins was suspended from practice for two years, while Spencer Paul McGuire received a £15,000 fine. Both were found to have allowed conflicts of interest and excessive payments that undermined confidence in the profession.
The case centred on the Albert Harris Will Trust, created in 1992 to maintain a family vault for eighty years before passing the residuary estate to the RSPCA. Between 2013 and 2019, Hutchins and McGuire authorised payments totalling around £37,000 to South London Cleaning No 1 Ltd (SLC), a company jointly owned by their wives. The firm was established to clean the vault, but invoices showed charges of £250 per visit, significantly higher than the £150 rate quoted by qualified stonemasons. Neither solicitor disclosed their wives’ ownership of SLC to the RSPCA, meaning the charity had no knowledge of the personal financial benefits flowing into the trustees’ households.
Hutchins admitted that the payments were excessive and that he failed to disclose his wife’s interest. He also claimed more than £36,000 in professional charges between 2012 and 2019, which the tribunal concluded were excessive for the limited services provided. The panel described his behaviour as reckless, finding that he knew the risks but went ahead regardless, placing his own interests above those of the trust. His suspension was deemed necessary to protect the public and maintain professional standards.
Embed from Getty ImagesMcGuire also permitted payments to SLC and accepted that he failed to disclose his wife’s interest, a clear breach of the duty to uphold public trust. However, the tribunal did not find evidence that he knew the payments were excessive, though it said he ought to have known. His actions were labelled a culpable oversight rather than dishonesty. For that reason, the panel imposed a financial penalty of £15,000 instead of a suspension.
The SDT stressed that solicitors acting as trustees must maintain absolute loyalty to beneficiaries and avoid any situation that creates a conflict of interest. Both men indirectly benefited from payments made to their wives, and their failure to inform the RSPCA left the charity unable to scrutinise the management of trust funds. This lack of transparency, the tribunal said, had the potential to undermine public confidence in the legal profession.
The ruling made clear that Hutchins, despite being an experienced solicitor, had engaged in reckless conduct by channelling trust money into his household. His claim that conflict of interest never crossed his mind was dismissed as implausible. McGuire, meanwhile, escaped suspension because the panel accepted his conduct was an oversight, not deliberate concealment, though it still constituted serious misconduct.
The sanctions mark a decisive outcome to proceedings that exposed years of mismanagement. Hutchins will not be able to practise for two years, while McGuire must pay his £15,000 fine. Both outcomes serve as a warning to solicitors that even perceived conflicts of interest in trustee roles can have devastating consequences. The tribunal concluded that only decisive penalties could restore public trust after such damaging breaches.