Solicitor fined for failing to disclose family ties in multiple high-risk property transactions
A senior solicitor with nearly four decades of experience has been fined £12,500 after admitting to serious breaches of professional rules in a series of property transactions involving himself and close family members.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) found that Mark Robert Westwood acted in five conveyancing matters between September 2016 and October 2020 where there was either an actual conflict of interest or a significant risk of one. The lender clients in each case were not told that the borrowers were either Westwood himself or his immediate relatives.
Westwood, admitted to the Roll in 1985, was at the time a consultant at Cavendish Legal Group, later acquired by O’Neill Patient Solicitors. Based at the firm’s Hove office, he supervised property matters and was responsible for the transactions under scrutiny. He now works as a consultant at Engleharts and holds an unconditional practising certificate.
The SDT heard that the cases came to light after Clydesdale Bank complained in 2021, flagging a certificate of title signed by Westwood in a deal where he was one of the borrowers. The bank described this as a breach of instructions, contrary to conveyancing rules and a clear conflict of interest.
A forensic investigation by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) uncovered further examples. In all five matters, the lender clients’ specific instructions under the UK Finance Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook prohibited a solicitor from acting for both lender and borrower where the borrower was the solicitor or an immediate family member—unless strict safeguards were followed. These safeguards were not met.
In some instances, Westwood signed the certificates of title himself; in others, a trainee or colleague acted under his supervision. The certificates falsely certified that neither the solicitor nor their immediate family had an interest in the property as mortgagor. None of the files showed the lenders had been told of Westwood’s personal interest or family relationship with the borrowers.
Embed from Getty ImagesThe tribunal noted that Westwood failed to review the lender instructions or follow firm policies on conflicts of interest. This, it said, meant he could not act in the best interests of the lender clients or provide the proper standard of service required.
Although no dishonesty was alleged and the SRA withdrew claims of recklessness and lack of integrity, the SDT concluded that the misconduct was “more serious” within its sanctions guidance. It highlighted the risk of harm to clients and lenders, and the damage to public trust in the profession.
In mitigation, Westwood pointed to his long and otherwise unblemished career, the small proportion of transactions affected compared to his overall caseload, and the absence of any financial loss to clients. He said the breaches were a matter of oversight, not intent, and he had since taken steps to ensure compliance, including attending specialist training.
The SDT accepted that Westwood had shown genuine remorse and had co-operated fully with the investigation from the outset, making early admissions. The panel also acknowledged that he no longer acts for relatives in property matters.
Taking all factors into account, the tribunal decided that a fine of £12,500—towards the top of its “Level 3” band—was appropriate. Westwood was also ordered to pay £19,670 in costs.
The penalty, the tribunal said, was necessary to reflect the seriousness of the breaches, uphold public confidence in the profession, and mark the importance of adhering strictly to conflict-of-interest rules in conveyancing.
