No.

10272-2009

IN THE MATTER OF NATHANIEL BERTRAND FELTON, solicitor - AND IN THE MATTER OF THE SOLICITORS ACT 1974

______________________________________________ Mr J P Davies (in the chair) Mr K W Duncan Lady Bonham Carter Date of Hearing: 17th December 2009 ______________________________________________

FINDINGS
of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal Constituted under the Solicitors Act 1974 ______________________________________________ An application was duly made on behalf of the Solicitors Regulation Authority ("SRA") by Jayne Willetts, solicitor advocate and partner of Townshends LLP, Cornwall House, 31 Lionel Street, Birmingham, B3 1AP on 3rd June 2009 that Nathaniel Bertrand Felton of 27 Station Road, Barnet, Hertfordshire, EN5 1PW, a solicitor, might be required to answer the allegations contained in the statement which accompanied the application and such Order might be made as the Tribunal should think right. The allegations against the Respondent were that: 1. In allowing the name of his firm to be listed on the Bar Council's Withdrawal of Credit Scheme on 5th December 2008 for non-payment of Counsel's fees, he had behaved in a way that is likely to diminish the trust the public places in him or the profession contrary to Rule 1.06 of the Solicitors Code of Conduct 2007. He failed to deal with the SRA in an open, prompt or cooperative manner or at all in relation to a complaint by the Bar Council contrary to Rule 20.03 of the Solicitors Code of Conduct 2007. He failed to account to a client, Mr S, for interest from 11th June 2003 to 31st October 2003 in breach of Rule 24 Solicitors Accounts Rules 1998.

2.

3.

2 4. He failed to deal with the SRA in an open, prompt or cooperative manner or at all in relation to a complaint on behalf of Mr S contrary to Rule 20.03 of the Solicitors Code of Conduct 2007.

The application was heard at the Court Room, 3rd Floor, Gate House, 1 Farringdon Street, London, EC4M 7NS on 17th December 2009 when Jayne Willetts appeared as the Applicant and the Respondent appeared in person. The evidence before the Tribunal included the admissions of the Respondent and a number of documents handed in by the Respondent. At the conclusion of the hearing the Tribunal made the following Order: The Tribunal Orders that the Respondent, Nathaniel Bertrand Felton of 27 Station Road, Barnet, Hertfordshire, EN5 1PW, solicitor, do pay a fine of 5,000.00, such penalty to be forfeit to Her Majesty the Queen, and it further Orders that he do pay the costs of and incidental to this application and enquiry fixed in the sum of 4,886.00. The Tribunal further Orders that unless the Respondent pays the outstanding Counsels fees in the sum of 4,353.75, as detailed in the schedule provided by the Bar Council with their letter dated 16th December 2008, by 1st March 2010, and he provides satisfactory evidence of having done so to the Solicitors Regulation Authority by the same date, the respondent will be suspended from practice from 2nd March 2010 indefinitely. The facts are set out in paragraphs 1 - 7 hereunder: 1. The Respondent, born in 1967, was admitted as a solicitor in 1997 and held a current practising certificate. He practised on his own account as Nathaniel Felton Solicitors, 27 Station Road, Barnett, Hertfordshire, EN5 1PW. Allegation 1 2. In December 2008 the Bar Council informed the SRA that the Respondent's firm had failed to pay Counsel's fees and that a Withdrawal of Credit Direction had been made against the firm on 5th December 2008. A schedule of outstanding fees provided by the Bar Council dated 16th December 2008 showed outstanding fee notes from 2nd May 2003 to 2nd April 2007 in the total sum of 4,353.75. These fees remain outstanding. Allegation 2 3. The SRA wrote to the Respondent on 9th and 27th January 2009 and on 5th February 2009 seeking his explanation regarding the Withdrawal of Credit Direction. No response was received. Allegation 3 4. Mr S was appointed executor for his late aunt, Mrs N. The Respondent's firm dealt with the administration of the estate from June 2003. The matter was dealt with by Mr B.

5.

The probate file for the estate of Mrs N was transferred from Mr B's former firm to Nathaniel F Elton Solicitors together with estate monies of 294,738.29 on 11th June 2003. Mr B and the Respondent went into partnership together on 1st November 2003 as Felton Bird Solicitors. The estate monies were transferred to Felton Bird Solicitors on 31st October 2003. Mr B's partnership with the Respondent terminated in June 2004 and the probate file was transferred to Mr B's new firm together with the estate monies. The Respondent failed to account to his client for interest on estate monies from 11th June 2003 to 31st October 2003 in the sum of 1,747.21. An Adjudicator directed on 2nd December 2008 that this be paid with compensation of 400. Allegation 4

6.

7.

The SRA wrote to the Respondent on 14th October 2008 seeking his explanation on the complaint made by Mr S. The Respondent replied on 28th October 2008 stating that the interest on the estate monies had been transferred to the new firm of Felton Bird Solicitors and that he would obtain bank statements to evidence this. These statements were apparently sent by the Respondent to the SRA by post but were not received. The Respondent did not reply to further letters requesting the missing statements. The Submissions of the Applicant

8.

The Applicant confirmed that all the allegations had been admitted. Interest had now been paid in relation to the estate of Mrs N; however Counsel's fees still remained outstanding. The Applicant confirmed that the Respondent had admitted the allegations at the earliest opportunity and had cooperated with the authority throughout. However, whilst each allegation individually did not appear to be serious, there was a course of unacceptable conduct exhibited by the Respondent. The Applicant made an application for her costs which had been agreed with the Respondent in the sum of 4,886. The Submissions of the Respondent

9.

10.

11.

The Respondent confirmed the allegations were all admitted. He had in fact appeared before the Tribunal on 25th October 2007 and referred to the facts on that occasion as background to the matters before the Tribunal today. The Respondent provided the Tribunal with copies of the bank statements for Felton Bird Solicitors which were all addressed to Mr B, who had left the practice by then. He had acted on the probate of the late Mrs N and the Respondent had only become involved when the estate moneys were transferred to Felton Bird Solicitors. The Respondent had been unable to ascertain from Mr B whether the moneys were paid into a designated client account. The Respondent only did immigration work and did not hold significant funds on client account whereas Mr B was a specialist in

12.

4 conveyancing, probate and matrimonial law so most of the funds in client account belonged to his clients. The interest had now been paid to Mr S and was paid promptly as soon as the complaint was made. Mr B had not provided the Respondent with the cheque books, statements or contact details of the bank manager, or indeed the files and ledgers in order for the Respondent to check the position. 13. Counsel's fees were still outstanding and the Respondent confirmed he intended to discharge these within the next two months. The Respondent now ensured that clients' paid Counsel's fees in advance and that Counsel was paid in advance of work done. The Respondent would be able to pay three of Counsel's outstanding fees within the next week and the remainder would be paid after the Christmas break. Regarding the failure to cooperate with the SRA, the Respondent had received a letter from the SRA regarding the estate of Mrs N on 24th December 2008 who had given him ten days within which to reply. The Respondent's offices had been closed over the Christmas break and that was the only letter he had failed to reply to. However, he had written to the SRA on 24th November 2008 and his letter had set out the position to them. There was no protracted failure on the part of the Respondent to reply to the SRA and it was unfair to allege he had been uncooperative. He had simply failed to communicate for about two and a half months and there was a quick resolution of the matter. Regarding the correspondence with the SRA concerning the fees due to Counsel, the SRA had written to the Respondent on 9th and 27th January 2009 and 5th February 2009 which was over a relatively short period. At the same time the Respondent was the subject of a practice monitoring visit from the PSU at the SRA and was in good and open communication with them. Indeed, his firm had received a clean bill of health in March 2009. The Respondent felt at the time that he was being hit by three/four different SRA Officers from different departments and he requested one coordinating Officer to deal with all matters. The Respondent emphasised that late communication had taken place rather than no communication. The Respondent had been told by the SRA that one co-ordinating Officer could not be allocated as the SRA did not work in that manner. The Respondent had attended a course on the Solicitors Code of Conduct and had also attended training regarding the Solicitors Accounts Rules. He had invested 10,000 in a new computerised accounts system and indeed had been given an unqualified Accountant's Report. The Respondent was a sole practitioner employing three staff and due to increasing regulatory requirements, he regularly worked six and a quarter days per week. He provided the Tribunal with details of his income from his practice. The Respondent had underlying health issues and referred the Tribunal to letters from his doctors giving details of these issues. He was now receiving treatment. The Respondent asked the Tribunal not to remove his ability to practice as this would be disproportionate in the circumstances. He had been in some communication with the S RA, although he accepted it was not over these issues. The SRA had been in his firm, they had taken a good look around and were happy with what they saw. The Respondent had felt harassed by the SRA at the time, he was working long hours in

14.

15.

16.

17.

5 bad health and simply switched off for those three months. He accepted the errors he had made and intended to resolve all matters. 18. He accepted his professional relationship with Mr B had ended acrimoniously and there were still lingering issues. He had realised that he would not be able to resolve matters with Mr B and had accordingly made the decision to pay all of Counsel's outstanding fees himself. The Findings of the Tribunal 19. The Tribunal listened carefully to both parties and considered all the documents before it. The Tribunal found all of the allegations to have been substantiated, indeed they were admitted by the Respondent. This was the second time in two years that the Respondent had appeared before the Tribunal and the Tribunal viewed the allegations very seriously. The Tribunal accepted that these allegations had arisen from the same period as the allegations referred to in the previous appearance, when the Respondent had been in partnership with Mr B and which resulted in both of them appearing before the Tribunal. The Tribunal accepted that during this period and subsequently the Respondent had suffered ill health and had provided medical evidence to confirm this. Since then the Respondent's practice had been visited by the Forensic Investigation Unit of the SRA and the Practice Standards Unit both of which were satisfied with the day to day running of the practice. The Respondent had also provided unqualified Accountant's Reports. He had complied with the Adjudication Order which was the basis of one of the allegations, and he had also paid outstanding interest on client funds. The fine imposed at the previous hearing and the Applicant's costs from that application had also been paid in full. Nevertheless, the Tribunal was concerned about the substantial and outstanding Counsel's fees and was frankly at a loss to understand why they were still unpaid after such a lengthy period of time, especially when the majority of those fees related to a period when the Respondent practised as a sole practitioner. The Respondent had not provided any proper explanation for the delay in payment of these fees and the Tribunal was satisfied that his conduct had brought the profession into disrepute as well as damaging his own reputation. The Tribunal viewed the combined allegations very seriously and Ordered the Respondent be fined 5,000. The Tribunal further Ordered that if the Respondent did not pay the outstanding Counsel's fees by 1st March 2010, he should be suspended from practice from 2nd March 2010 on an indefinite basis. The Tribunal also Ordered costs as agreed in the sum of 4,886.00. The Tribunal Ordered that the Respondent, Nathaniel Bertrand Felton of 27 Station Road, Barnet, Hertfordshire, EN5 1PW, solicitor, do pay a fine of 5,000.00, such penalty to be forfeit to Her Majesty the Queen, and it further Ordered that he do pay

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

6 the costs of and incidental to this application and enquiry fixed in the sum of 4,886.00. The Tribunal further Ordered that unless the Respondent pays the outstanding Counsels fees in the sum of 4,353.75, as detailed in the schedule provided by the Bar Council with their letter dated 16th December 2008, by 1st March 2010, and he provides satisfactory evidence of having done so to the Solicitors Regulation Authority by the same date, the Respondent will be suspended from practice from 2nd March 2010 indefinitely. Dated this 15th day of April 2010 on behalf of the Tribunal

J P Davies Chairman