SDT: Solicitor had a difficult decision to make
A senior associate who completed a transaction without an executed mortgage deed, exposing both the lender and lay clients to “a variety of unknown and unacceptable risks”, has been struck off.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) said Tatiana Langridge acted dishonestly because she “knew that the requisite documentation was not in place before the completion” and she was acting against the lender’s express instructions.
The SDT entreated solicitors “who realise they have not got everything that they need for completion of a transaction to speak to and take advice from more experienced colleagues” about the risks in departing from correct procedures.
“If they do not, it may have adverse consequences for their clients and, ultimately, them.”
The SDT heard that Ms Langridge, admitted in 2016, joined City firm Maurice Turnor Gardner as a conveyancer in February 2022.
She was already known to the law firm, having worked on the other side of several transactions but was still in her probationary period at the time of the misconduct.
Ms Langridge acted for lay purchaser clients A and B and for the lender, Clydesdale Bank, in the purchase of a freehold property. Everything progressed as normal and the solicitor completed the transaction on 1 July 2022, as agreed.
However, she did not have the original signed mortgage deed, a requirement under the Law Society’s conveyancing protocol, meaning the loan was not secured.
Another senior associate who was responsible for all registration and post-completion matters at the firm raised concerns about the absence of the deed.
Maurice Turnor Gardner suspended Ms Langridge and terminated her employment on the grounds of gross misconduct on 15 July. A mortgage deed was correctly executed on the same day.
The firm reported her to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) and the solicitor self-reported a week later.
Ms Landridge admitted “carelessness and incompetence”, but denied acting dishonestly, with a lack of integrity or against the interests of her clients.
The SDT said that “as a senior conveyancing solicitor with five years’ post-qualification experience”, she “fully understood” that she was not acting in accordance with the protocol, nor the lender’s instructions as set out in the Lenders’ Handbook.
“Ordinary decent people” would regard as dishonest a solicitor who knew she was acting against her her client’s express instructions and nevertheless completed the transaction. She was also found to have acted with a lack of integrity and against the interests of both lay and lender clients.
While no “actual harm” had been caused, Ms Langridge “must have appreciated that there had been a risk of potentially serious harm being caused to any or all of the clients”.
The tribunal said it considered, in mitigation, that Ms Langridge “had to make a difficult decision in circumstances, where she had seemingly received no support or supervision from anyone in the firm”.
While she made allegations about the culture of the firm, the SDT did not hear from the partner involved because Ms Langridge declined an opportunity to cross-examine him; she claimed she was “simply unable to face” him.
The SDT found that while her “allegations regarding her working conditions and lack of support, and/or her motivation in attempting to protect harm or misery being caused to the lay clients [should completion be delayed] were relevant, they were nevertheless not sufficient, either alone or cumulatively, to be classed as exceptional” in the context of dishonesty.
On costs, the tribunal found some “duplication of work” by Capsticks Solicitors, acting for the SRA, and reduced the regulator’s costs from £21,700 to £17,400.
Leave a Comment