Charge 1 (professional misconduct under s 297(1)(b) for appropriating funds not entitled to) was found proved; Charge 2 (breach of rule 4.1.4 by compromising integrity and professional independence through involving a former client) was found not proved; the matter was listed for a penalty hearing. A finding of professional misconduct under s 297(1)(b) does not require an allegation or proof of a particular mental state such as dishonesty or recklessness — the conduct itself (here, issuing an invoice for and retaining funds belonging to a former employer for two months as leverage) may suffice to justify a finding that the practitioner is not fit and proper. However, a charge alleging breach of rule 4.1.4 by involving a former client in an appropriation will not be made out where the client participated willingly, was aware of the consequences, and no conflict between the client's interests and the practitioner's interests is demonstrated. The Tribunal left open the broader question of whether rule 4.1.4 applies beyond the confines of legal practice or the solicitor-client relationship.
The full text is available to signed-in members.