In a recently reported case before the SDT, a solicitor who had incorrectly advised 115 clients around the timing of rent reviews, having used a precedent report on title which had not been amended for these particular circumstances, agreed to accept a finding as part of an Agreed Outcome that he had acted in breach of his professional obligations and duties, in  particular a failure to provide a proper standard of service to clients and a failure to behave in a way that maintains the trust the public placed in him and in the provision of legal services. Whilst the SDT recognised that the solicitor had been open and honest, fully co-operated with the firm and the SRA during the investigation and did not deliberately intend to compromise the clients, showed insight and accepted accountability, the SDT still considered the misconduct to be ‘very serious,’ and issued a £15,000 fine and an order for costs of £13,350.

The Tribunal found that there were aggravating features in that the mistake was repeated over a protracted period and the solicitor knew or ought to have known that inattention to detail could result in a material breach of his professional obligations and duties.

The case is a stark reminder that:

• Precedents, whilst beneficial if used correctly, still require careful review on a case by case basis to ensure that they accurately reflect both the current law and the terms agreed between the parties.
• Systems and controls need to be robust to ensure a clear understanding of when precedents should/should not be used, that any precedents being used are regularly reviewed, access to old precedents restricted and there is an appropriate supervision process in place.
• Whilst the SRA is unlikely to investigate/discipline a single act of negligence, it will want to know about patterns of conduct and/or circumstances where a number of clients are impacted by the negligence.