The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal has suspended a solicitor for two years.
- David Durkin-Finch allowed an unadmitted individual to manage a law firm under his directorship.
- The firm, operating as Cleverson Solicitors, directed profits to unauthorised parties.
- Durkin-Finch failed to oversee firm operations and compliance adequately.
- No clients were harmed, but financial mismanagement was evident.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) has imposed a two-year suspension on solicitor David Durkin-Finch for permitting an unadmitted individual, Matthew Waterfield, to manage a law firm where Durkin-Finch served as nominee director and shareholder. Despite being the designated compliance officer, Durkin-Finch’s oversight was significantly lacking, allowing all profits to benefit Waterfield and his mother.
Mr Durkin-Finch admitted to being reckless, acknowledging awareness of Mr Waterfield’s lack of admission and his previous firm’s administrative failings. It was largely deemed fortunate that no clients were adversely affected during this period, as noted by the SDT, which described the situation as “perhaps more by luck than judgment.”
The firm, trading under the name Cleverson Solicitors, was initially set up with Durkin-Finch as the regulated individual responsible for compliance while Waterfield handled daily operations. However, an arrangement where the firm’s eventual transition to an Alternative Business Structure (ABS) was envisaged, did not materialise.
In breach of professional ethics, Durkin-Finch allowed Waterfield unrestricted control, despite knowing the latter’s potential incapacity to manage a regulated law firm. Waterfield’s involvement in Cleverson after his previous business’s downfall did not deter him from replicating similar managerial negligence.
Financial mismanagement further characterised the operations at Cleverson. The firm faced unresolved VAT liabilities exceeding £83,800, contributing to its insolvency. Durkin-Finch also neglected key financial safeguards, resulting in a £13,000 client account deficit and failures in timely property registration, impacting 13 properties in transition at the Land Registry.
The SDT acknowledged Durkin-Finch’s insight into his failings, but stopped short of imposing a harsher penalty, citing his eventual effort to remediate by severing ties with Waterfield and facilitating an orderly shutdown of Cleverson. The tribunal emphasised that ethical breaches and unsupervised transactions ought to have been prevented.
Post-suspension conditions impose indefinite restrictions on Durkin-Finch’s professional capacities, barring him from roles of singular authority including sole practitioner or compliance officer, ensuring tighter controls on his future legal practice involvements.
David Durkin-Finch’s suspension reflects a critical lapse in professional responsibility and client safeguarding.
