Tribunal strikes off solicitor who impersonated colleague to obtain loan for his company
A solicitor who impersonated a fellow company director and used a fabricated signature to obtain a corporate loan has been struck off the roll. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal heard that Stuart Nuttall secured the loan for his private security business, Sentium Group Limited, by presenting misleading information to the lender.
The tribunal was told that Nuttall created a false company email account in the name of another director. He then used that email account, electronically signed a document with the director’s name and contacted the loan provider while pretending to be that director. As a result of these actions, the director was recorded as a personal guarantor for the loan without any knowledge that the application had been made. The director first became aware of the loan when told about a default several months later.
Nuttall subsequently wrote to the loan provider and admitted he had wrongfully taken out the loan. He stated that he had indemnified the director against any resulting costs. The tribunal concluded that his behaviour was clearly dishonest and involved deliberate steps to mislead both the lender and his colleague.
Embed from Getty Images
The matter raised a jurisdictional question for the tribunal. Although Nuttall qualified as a solicitor in 1997, he did not hold a practising certificate at the time of the misconduct in 2018. The tribunal considered whether it could impose sanctions for conduct that occurred outside the day to day practice of law. It concluded that the behaviour in question was relevant to Nuttall’s standing as a solicitor and that members of the public would reasonably expect such conduct to be addressed. The tribunal relied on the principles set out in the decision known as Beckwith against the Solicitors Regulation Authority to find that it had jurisdiction.
Nuttall did not attend the hearing and had not engaged with the disciplinary process since August of the previous year. He was not represented at the tribunal. Additional matters were considered, including a finding that he had falsely informed a clerk for counsel that he had authorised payment of a fee of one thousand two hundred pounds, when no payment had been made. The tribunal also found that Nuttall had failed to cooperate with the Solicitors Regulation Authority during its investigation. Although he stated that he was too unwell to comply with requests for information, he did not provide any medical evidence to support that claim.
The tribunal held that the conduct amounted to serious dishonesty and that no sanction short of striking off would be sufficient to protect the public or maintain trust in the profession. It concluded that there were no exceptional circumstances which would justify a lesser penalty. Nuttall was removed from the roll of solicitors and ordered to pay costs of seven thousand six hundred and three pounds.
The findings reflect the tribunal’s position that dishonesty, even when committed outside formal legal practice, can have a significant impact on public confidence. The tribunal noted that the fraudulent actions were not minor or accidental but were undertaken through a series of deliberate steps that created a false impression for financial gain.
Nuttall’s failure to engage with the process was also a material consideration. The tribunal observed that solicitors have a duty to cooperate with regulatory investigations. The absence of any explanation or participation from Nuttall was taken as further evidence that regulatory intervention was necessary and justified.
The order to strike him off brings the matter to a close. The tribunal’s written reasons emphasise the importance of honesty as a core professional obligation which applies to all solicitors regardless of whether they are actively practising or using their qualification in a different commercial environment.