Probert, John Paul - 149756

REGULATORY SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

• 1. The partners of Robinson Murphy of Newcastle upon Tyne, being Mr N Robinson and Mr J Probert ["the Partners"] agree to the following outcome of the investigation into their professional conduct under reference RDC/2278-2009 and RDC/2283-2009.

Background

• 2. Following complaints of inadequate professional service by two former clients, Mr David Cameron and Mr William Shand, the Solicitors Regulation Authority investigated the issues of professional misconduct raised by the complaints.
• 3. Following correspondence with Robinson & Murphy, the following was established:-
  • 3.1 Both Mr D Cameron and Mr W Shand instructed the practice of Thompson & Robinson which now practices under the style of Robinson & Murphy.
  • 3.2 At the time the firm received instructions in relation to Mr Cameron and Mr Shand, Claims Handling Agreements (CHAs) in respect of both Vibration White Finger (VWF) and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) miners' claims were in place.
  • 3.3 Patrick Murphy was the supervising partner of the Miner's Compensation work until his death in June 2004 and thereafter Nigel Robinson took over responsibility.
  • 3.4 The firm conducted 376 claims on behalf of miners or their relatives under the Claims Handling Agreements set up by the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) under the Supervision of the High Court.
  • 3.5 Industrial Diseases Compensation Limited (IDC) referred 97 of these cases to the firm.
    • i) IDC agreed to underwrite the legal costs of their clients claim for Personal Injury on the basis that the client paid IDC a registration fee upon signing the agreement, and a settlement fee in proportion to the damages recovered by them.
    • ii) Payments by way of deductions from damages amounting to &9507.97 were paid to IDC. In addition the affected clients also paid IDC the registration fee of &35.00.
  • 3.6 The firm have repaid Mr Cameron &1,325.00 as part of a conciliation agreed with the Legal Complaints Service (LCS). Mr Shand withdrew his complaint to the LCS.
  • 3.7 The firm have agreed to repay to clients any payments they have made to IDC inclusive of the registration fee of &35.00.

Undertaking

• 4. The Partners accordingly undertake that they will:
  • 4.1 within 2 months of the date of this agreement make all reasonable endeavours to trace and contact the clients already identified by the firm in the Schedule to their response dated 10 November 2009.
  • 4.2 within 3 months of the date of this agreement to reimburse all traced clients the full amounts paid or deducted from their damages as success fees together with interest on those deductions from the date that they were made at the rate of 5% per annum, and the registration fee of &35.00.
  • 4.3 provide monthly updates as to progress made in tracing the clients to the Solicitors Regulation Authority including a list of all clients' names and addresses and amounts reimbursed and/or such other information or documentation that the SRA may from time to time require.

Submission to findings

• 5. Nigel Robinson, being the supervising Partner in the Personal Injury Department from June 2004 (after the death of Patrick Murphy) and John Probert agree to submit to the following findings being made by the SRA that they :
  • acted contrary to Rules 1 (c) and 15 of the Solicitors' Practice Rules 1990 in that they failed to act in their clients' best interests by failing to provide advice to their clients about the VWF and/or COPD Claims Handlings Agreements when they were implemented and failed to provide updated costs information. They also failed to provide advice to their clients about why the continuation of the Conditional Fee Agreement (CFA) was necessary in light of the CHA and/or to consider whether the success fee to be paid to IDC at the end of the matter was appropriate, contrary to the relevant provision of the CFAs. Mr Robinson and Mr Probert also failed to ensure that their clients were told that their costs would be met by the DTI.
  • acted contrary to Rule 9 of the Solicitors Practice Rules 1990 in that they had entered into an arrangement or acted in association with IDC whose business it was to make , support or prosecute personal injury claims and in respect of which IDC solicited or received a contingency fee. The monies payable were only payable to IDC in the event of success in the claim.

Disciplinary Outcome

• 6. It is likely that the Tribunal would not restrict Mr Robinson's or Mr Probert's ability to practise. An outcome that involves full and prompt pro-active restitution to clients, a consequent financial burden on the firm and an acceptance of the findings as set out above, is proportionate to the circumstances.
• 7. Mr Robinson and Mr Probert are reprimanded for the breaches identified in paragraph 5 above.
• 8. The Partners agree that this outcome may be published by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and that it may also be disclosed to any person upon request or otherwise.
• 9. The Partners agree that they will not act in any way inconsistent with this agreement such as, for example, by denying the misconduct found in paragraph 5 above. This restriction will not however prevent the firm contesting on its merits any individual complaint to the Legal Complaints Service which might be made.
• 10. If the undertaking referred to in paragraph 4 above is not complied with within the time limit stated, or if the Firm acts in any way inconsistently with this agreement, all issues may be referred for consideration of referral of the Partners' conduct to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (or internal decision) on the original facts and allegations and also on the basis that such failure to comply may also constitute a breach of Rule 1 of the Solicitors' Code of Conduct 2007.
• 11. The Partners agree to pay the costs of the investigation of the SRA, these being &2475.00.
• 12. The date of this agreement is 17 August 2010.

Mr Nigel Robinson
Mr John Probert

David J Middleton
Legal Director
For the Solicitors Regulation Authority