SRA restricts non-solicitor Baykal Suruk after he took a client’s £12,250 and failed to return it
A non-solicitor who worked as a consultant in the litigation department of Ivy Solicitors has been placed under strict controls by the Solicitors Regulation Authority after he accepted a significant cash payment from a client and failed to pay it into the firm’s accounts. The regulator found that Baykal Suruk acted dishonestly when he took twelve thousand two hundred and fifty pounds in November 2021, telling the client that the money would be used to progress court proceedings. The funds were never paid into the firm’s client account, never used for the stated purpose and not returned when the client requested repayment.
The SRA decision explains that Mr Suruk, whose last known address was in London, was involved in a legal practice even though he was not a qualified solicitor. He completed work in the name of or under the supervision of a solicitor at Ivy Solicitors, an SRA-regulated firm based in Chingford. The regulator concluded that his conduct demonstrated a clear departure from the standards required of anyone working in a legal environment. It said the behaviour was serious because it involved dishonesty and had the potential to undermine public trust and confidence in the profession.
Embed from Getty Images
Following its investigation, the SRA imposed an order under section forty three of the Solicitors Act 1974. This type of order restricts where and how an individual who is not a solicitor may work within the regulated sector. It requires any future employer to seek the regulator’s written approval before employing or remunerating the individual in connection with legal work. It also prevents the person from holding a managerial role or having an interest in any recognised body without prior SRA permission.
The regulator said that the order was necessary because Mr Suruk’s actions showed that it would be undesirable for him to be involved in a legal practice without oversight. The restrictions came into effect from the date on which he was formally notified of the decision. The SRA also ordered him to pay a proportion of its investigation costs amounting to one thousand three hundred and fifty pounds.
The decision notice sets out the practical effect of the section forty-three order. Solicitors and recognised bodies are not permitted to employ or remunerate Mr Suruk for work connected with legal practice unless the SRA grants approval. He cannot act as a manager of a recognised body or hold any ownership interest in one unless the regulator gives express written consent.
Section forty-three orders are used to protect the public where individuals who are not solicitors have shown themselves unfit to work in the sector without regulatory control. In this case, the SRA emphasised that the dishonesty involved in retaining client money justified the restrictions imposed.