Ex-Kingsley Napley Partner Fined For Misconduct
The SDT found that the partner's misconduct did not arise from dishonesty, but rather from "genuine mistakes".
July 15, 2019 at 07:11 AM
3 minute read
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) has fined a former Kingsley Napley partner £15,000 for misconduct, along with legal fees of £7,500.
Matthew Duncan – who at the time headed up Kingsley's private client practice – was found to have authorised payments to a client between October 2015 and May 2016 in breach of the terms set out by a district registry, according to the case records published by the SDT.
The tribunal found that he had lost £500 entrusted to him by a separate client, for which he was ultimately responsible and which he accepted, according to the judgment document.
In its explanation of the penalty imposed, the SDT stressed that Duncan's misconduct did not arise from dishonesty but rather from "genuine mistakes upon his part rather than a deliberate decision to act with impropriety".
The SDT ultimately concluded that he "should have known better".
Duncan's client, known only as Client A, was the widow of an ultra-high-net-worth individual who was also in a dispute with her partner's children over the distribution of the estate.
She was granted the role of executor of the estate but did not have the authority to make any payments out of the estate. Despite this, the tribunal agreed that Duncan made a payment of £750,000 to her in October 2015, followed by a further six payments totalling £825,542.46 during a period of eight months from the estate, which was worth "in excess of £9 million".
Duncan, who is now a consultant at London firm Druces, was also found to have provided insufficient advice to Client A on the risks related to the payments, particularly in relation to her role as executor. Summing up the misconduct case, the tribunal noted that these payments could have prejudiced Duncan's client in her role as executor.
Explaining his actions before the tribunal as part of his mitigation, Duncan argued that he had been acting in the client's "best interests", that he made the payments to Client A on the basis that she "was without income" following the deceased's passing, and that he "honestly believed" the payments were permitted under either the terms of the grant or the Trustee Act 2000.
Arguing in mitigation, Duncan said that, as a consequence of these allegations, he "has had to leave Kingsley Napley" and has "suffered significant financial loss".
A person on Duncan's behalf said he is declining to comment on the matter beyond what is included in the judgment.
Kingsley Napley and Druces declined to comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPogust Goodhead Set to Axe Roles as Accounts Remain Overdue
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250