Struck off: Solicitor branded dishonest after raiding client funds

Paul Andrew Da Costa Gaskin struck off after dishonest client account withdrawals

In a dramatic ruling by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, solicitor Paul Andrew Da Costa Gaskin has been struck off the Roll of Solicitors following a series of severe professional failings, including the withdrawal of nearly £10,000 from client accounts without entitlement. The tribunal, chaired by Mr N. Pearson and sitting on 16 February 2010, heard that Gaskin had repeatedly ignored communications from the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) and the Legal Complaints Service, compounding the gravity of his misconduct.

Gaskin, admitted as a solicitor in 1998, ran his own practice, Paul Gaskin Solicitors, until April 2008, when he entered into a partnership with two colleagues at Criminal Law Advocates. The tribunal’s findings revealed a shocking pattern of negligence, mismanagement, and dishonesty. Between March 2007 and mid-2008, Gaskin failed to respond to repeated letters and phone calls from regulators. He also practised without a valid practising certificate, contrary to the Solicitors Act 1974, and submitted his accountant’s report for the 2006–2007 period months late.

The tribunal highlighted that Gaskin had withdrawn £1,000 from a client account in February 2008 and, more egregiously, £9,716.24 in April 2008. The latter sum was taken despite Gaskin being aware that it did not belong to him. In line with the objective and subjective standards established in Twinsectra v Yardley, the tribunal concluded that this withdrawal constituted dishonesty. Gaskin’s defence rested on a mistaken belief that the funds were no longer clients’ money and his assumption that a land transaction return certificate indicated tax had been paid. Nevertheless, the tribunal rejected this explanation, emphasising that he had knowingly taken money to cover outstanding debts, thereby breaching his duty to act in clients’ best interests.

Beyond the financial misconduct, Gaskin’s handling of client complaints was heavily criticised. Two separate clients had lodged grievances with the Legal Complaints Service, and Gaskin consistently failed to communicate, resulting in delayed settlements and, in one case, a court-ordered payment to a defendant. The tribunal found these actions compromised both his clients’ interests and the wider reputation of the legal profession.

The tribunal also scrutinised the role of Gaskin’s partners. The second and third respondents, both employed as salaried partners at Criminal Law Advocates, had failed to obtain SRA approval before employing Gaskin. Both were found guilty of breaching regulatory obligations, though their conduct was deemed less egregious than Gaskin’s. The second respondent was fined £2,000 and the third £1,000, with additional costs imposed for each. Their failings were attributed to mismanagement and an inability to ensure compliance amid the pressures of a rapid merger, rather than deliberate dishonesty.

In mitigation, Gaskin cited intense stress, financial difficulties, and a chaotic takeover of a conveyancing firm, which he claimed left him unable to respond adequately to correspondence or manage accounts effectively. He acknowledged mistakes, including the improper withdrawal of client funds, but maintained that he did not intend dishonesty. The tribunal, however, determined that the severity of his misconduct and the threat it posed to public trust necessitated his removal from the Roll.

The disciplinary panel emphasised that the striking-off was essential to protect the public and maintain the profession’s integrity. Gaskin was ordered to pay costs of £8,078.75, though enforcement requires tribunal leave due to his financial circumstances. The second and third respondents were also ordered to cover tribunal costs, reflecting the seriousness of breaching regulatory obligations.

This case highlights the perils of poor oversight, financial mismanagement, and regulatory non-compliance in legal practice. It serves as a stark reminder that even seasoned solicitors face decisive consequences when client interests are compromised, and professional standards ignored.