Edward Bryn Bennett

Decision - Agreement

Outcome: Regulatory settlement agreement

Outcome date: 2 February 2021

Published date: 8 February 2021

Firm details

Firm or organisation at date of publication and at time of matters giving rise to outcome

Name: Plexus Legal LLP

Address(es): Josephs Well, Hanover Walk, Leeds, LS3 1AB

Firm ID: 638317

Outcome details

This outcome was reached by agreement.

Decision details

1. Agreed outcome

1.1 Edward Bryn Bennett, a solicitor of Plexus Legal LLP (the Firm), agrees to the following outcome to the investigation of his conduct by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA):

1. he is rebuked
2. to the publication of this agreement
3. he will pay the costs of the investigation of £300.

Reasons/basis

2.1 On 11 December 2019, Mr Bennett became involved in an argument with a female family member at his property, which resulted in him assaulting her.

2.2 On 12 December 2019, Mr Bennett accepted a conditional caution for assault by beating, contrary to section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

2.3 On 11 January 2020, Mr Bennett met the terms of his conditional caution.

3. Admissions

3.1 Mr Bennett admits, and the SRA accepts, that by virtue of his conduct and subsequent conditional caution, he failed to act in a way that upholds public trust and confidence in the solicitors' profession, in breach of Principle 2 of the SRA Principles.

4. Why a written rebuke is an appropriate outcome

4.1 The SRA’s Enforcement Strategy sets out its approach to the use of its enforcement powers where there has been a failure to meet its standards or requirements.

4.2 When considering the appropriate sanctions and controls in this matter, the SRA has taken into account the admissions made by Mr Bennett and the following mitigation which he has put forward:

1. It was an isolated incident, and out of character
2. Mr Bennett co-operated with the police and promptly complied with the terms of his conditional caution.
3. He has shown remorse into his offending, such that the risk of re-offending appears to be low.
4. The victim did not suffer any injuries.

4.3 The SRA considers that a written rebuke is the appropriate outcome because:

1. Mr Bennett’s conduct was reckless as it had the potential to cause harm
2. Some public sanction is required to uphold public confidence in the solicitor’s profession.

5. Publication

5.1 The SRA considers it appropriate that this agreement is published in the interests of transparency in the regulatory and disciplinary process. Mr Bennett agrees to the publication of this agreement.

6. Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement

6.1 Mr Bennett agrees that he will not deny the admissions made in this agreement or act in any way which is inconsistent with it.

6.2 If Mr Bennett denies the admissions or acts in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement, the conduct which is subject to this agreement may be considered further by the SRA. That may result in a disciplinary outcome or a referral to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal on the original facts and allegations.

6.3 Denying the admissions made or acting in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement may also constitute a separate breach of principles 2 and 5 of the Principles and paragraph 7.3 of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs.

7. Costs

7.1 Mr Bennett agrees to pay the costs of the SRA's investigation in the sum of £300. Such costs are due within 28 days of a statement of costs due being issued by the SRA.