John Wright was fined after hiding a conflict and directing payments from the client account
A senior solicitor has been fined £32,000 after secretly working against his own firm’s client during a multimillion-pound property sale.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) ruled on 7 February 2023 that John Charles Wright, formerly a manager at London firm Ashley Wilson LLP, acted without integrity when he concealed his personal involvement in a transaction and gave instructions to the buyer’s solicitors despite knowing the firm represented the vendor.
The tribunal heard that in 2016, Wright was a close friend of the purchasers of a £1.83 million property. Initially, his firm agreed not to represent both sides of the deal because of the conflict of interest. Another solicitor was brought in to act for the buyers.
But evidence later revealed that Wright continued to direct the buyers’ legal team behind the scenes. He became involved in the financial arrangements for the purchase, issued instructions to the buyers’ solicitors, and even played a role in preparing a pre-action protocol letter threatening his own firm with claims of misrepresentation.
Embed from Getty ImagesEmails showed Wright pushing for aggressive tactics to drive down the purchase price. At one stage, he suggested legal action against the vendor and helped instruct counsel to pursue damages of nearly £590,000. His actions, the tribunal found, placed his duty to friends above the interests of his firm’s paying client.
In addition, Wright instructed payments to be made from the buyers’ solicitors’ client account that had no connection to the property transaction. These included nearly £2,750 to Wimbledon Automatics Ltd and £50,000 to Avonhill Trading Ltd, breaching strict Solicitors Accounts Rules.
The tribunal concluded that Wright’s behaviour was planned misconduct, motivated by a desire to benefit the buyers and himself at the expense of the vendor client. His actions were described as a serious breach of professional duty.
Although the misconduct was serious, the SDT considered it an isolated incident in an otherwise unblemished career. Wright, admitted as a solicitor in 1991, had no previous disciplinary history and made early admissions once confronted with the evidence.
The tribunal rejected the idea of a mere reprimand but also decided that suspension or striking off would be disproportionate. Instead, it imposed a substantial financial penalty. His conduct was categorised as “Level 4 – very serious”, attracting a fine between £15,000 and £50,000. The agreed sanction of £32,000 was approved.
In addition, Wright was ordered to pay £15,600 in costs plus VAT.
In its reasoning, the tribunal emphasised that Wright’s actions risked significant harm. The vendors incurred additional legal costs and suffered distress. There was also the possibility that the sale might have collapsed altogether or that the vendors could have pursued claims against the firm if the conflict had been uncovered at the time.
The judgment stressed that public confidence in solicitors depends on full disclosure and strict avoidance of conflicts of interest. By hiding his involvement, Wright breached the fundamental principle of integrity central to the profession.
The case underlines the seriousness with which the SDT treats conflicts and misuse of client accounts. Even in the absence of dishonesty or repeat offences, solicitors face heavy fines and reputational damage when they put personal interests ahead of their clients.