Hansells solicitors boss defends role in misconduct case

Roger Holden, chairman of Hansells, was personally singled out by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) for his part in the case, which saw the beneficiaries of an estate paid the wrong money.

The regulator issued him with a personal fine of £3,223, which it said represented 32pc of his gross annual income, saying he had “failed to uphold public trust and confidence in the profession”.

Mr Holden, a former president of the Norfolk and Norwich Law Society, had acted as an administrator of the estate, a role the SRA said had created a conflict of interest as he was also a partner in the law firm.

Kathryn Hirst, managing partner at Hansells, has already apologised for the "historic mishandling" and said lessons had been learned and changes introduced.

However, an extraordinary statement later issued on Mr Holden's behalf has added a further twist and raised more questions for the firm.

Roger Holden, Hansells chairman and former president of the Norfolk and Norwich Law Society (Image: Antony Kelly)

The statement - issued by Newsmakers, an external PR firm, rather than by Hansells itself - gave more details about the case and explained the involvement of others at the company, not named by the SRA.

It said the original mistake had been made by a probate executive; that Mr Holden then "felt obliged" to take the case on; that he had relied on the advice of other specialist solicitors so did not realise there was a potential conflict of interest; and that delays in rectifying the situation should have been picked up by other senior members of staff.

WHAT DOES THE CASE INVOLVE?

The case dates back to 2001, when Hansells' predecessor, Hansells Solicitors, was instructed to deal with the administration of an estate for which no will had been made.

Following a mistake in the interpretation of the rules of intestacy - when a person dies without a valid will - some beneficiaries received too much money, and others not enough.

This meant that client money was improperly withdrawn from the client account.

Mr Holden was appointed as administrator of the estate in 2004, after the mistake was made but before it had been corrected.

In 2012, he was appointed as the firm’s compliance officer for legal practice and compliance officer for finance and administration.

But when the firm became a licensed body in 2014, it had a shortfall on its client account of almost £22,000 - linked to the earlier blunder over the estate - which was not replaced until eight years later in 2022, following a qualified accountant's report.

Between this time, from 2014 to 2022, the firm - based in Cambridge House, near the entrance to the Cathedral Close - failed to replace client money which had been wrongly withdrawn from the client account.

Hansells is based at Cambridge House, in Tombland, Norwich (Image: Google Maps)

WHAT DID THE SRA SAY?

The SRA, which regulates law firms, fined Hansells a total of £120,885 – 3.2pc of its turnover - for paying incorrect amounts to the beneficiaries of an estate and failing to rectify the mistake for eight years.

It noted that some of the beneficiaries were elderly and died before they could be properly paid.

In the 'facts of misconduct' stated in its report, the SRA also said the appointment of Mr Holden to take over the administration of the estate had created a conflict between his interests as a partner of the firm and the interests of the estate.

In its ruling, it said: "Mr Holden’s conduct was serious, and any lesser sanction would not provide a credible deterrent to Mr Holden and others.

"A credible deterrent plays a key role in maintaining professional standards and upholding public confidence."

It also ordered Hansells and Mr Holder to each pay £1,350 in costs, adding he had “direct control and responsibility for his conduct, which persisted for in excess of 18 years”.

In mitigation, the SRA noted that there were no findings of dishonesty or a lack of integrity from Hansells or Mr Holden, and both had made "some admissions", “albeit only once the matter had been referred to a decision maker”.

WHAT DOES MR HOLDEN NOW SAY?

The matter appeared closed, after the firm apologised, saying it had bolstered its compliance measures and was "committed to ensuring such errors do not recur, and to maintaining the trust and confidence of our clients and the public through exemplary service and adherence to the highest standards of professionalism".

But a statement later issued on Mr Holden's behalf from a PR firm has shone more light on the process, raising more questions for Hansells.

It said: "A probate executive handling the administration of an estate, for which no will had been made misinterpreted the laws of intestacy. That meant some beneficiaries received too much and some too little.

"The probate executive retired from Hansells and the file was passed on to other lawyers within the firm to correct.

"A senior solicitor of the firm then took over running the file and to get it sorted asked Mr Holden to be the administrator, as managing partner he felt obliged to do this.

"This means you are responsible to the court but the file is run by someone else.

"He relied on the senior solicitors’ specialist expertise in this area of the law not realising there was a potential conflict of interest.

"The senior solicitor has since retired and delays should have been picked up by the appropriate departmental head."

Hansells declined to comment on the statement.