The High Court ruled last week that Peter Rhys Williams, one of the country’s top agricultural lawyers, might not actually be dishonest.
Williams is an old favourite of RollOnFriday. An agriculture specialist – he wrote the authoritative book on the subject – got into a very public spat when he was kicked out of his firm, Wilsons. To the embarrassment of pretty much everyone he took the firm to court and compelled it to take him back. He subsequently left Wilsons (and brought more proceedings against it) when more than 75% of the partnership voted that he be forced to retire. Williams went to Veale Wasbrough Vizards for a brief stint before ending up at Michelmores. And ultimately before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal at the end of last year.
Wilsons had contacted the SRA after it went through Williams’ files and suspected that he might have dishonestly helped a client conceal the full value of a property from a mortgage lender. The SDT ruled that he had. Williams was struck off and ordered to pay £195,000 in costs. He appealed, and last week the High Court ruled that the SDT had – at least in part – bugged it up. Mrs Justice Carr held that the tribunal “could not fairly find him to be dishonest without the most careful consideration of what he said in his defence. He should have had the opportunity to respond to the SRA’s allegations against him orally in the witness box, and to be judged on that evidence.” But before Williams could crack open the champagne she added that she dismissed his appeal against a finding of want of integrity.
Williams and the SRA have now been told to put their heads together and work out how the appeal might move forward as quickly as possible.
Simon Barnett, a partner at Michelmores, said that "any sanction in relation to the finding of lack of integrity has not yet been considered. Therefore, we are unable to comment further at this time. The events giving rise to the case predate Peter Williams joining Michelmores in 2012. As a Firm, our priority remains to ensure that we continue to provide an excellent service to our clients.”
Tip Off ROF
Williams is an old favourite of RollOnFriday. An agriculture specialist – he wrote the authoritative book on the subject – got into a very public spat when he was kicked out of his firm, Wilsons. To the embarrassment of pretty much everyone he took the firm to court and compelled it to take him back. He subsequently left Wilsons (and brought more proceedings against it) when more than 75% of the partnership voted that he be forced to retire. Williams went to Veale Wasbrough Vizards for a brief stint before ending up at Michelmores. And ultimately before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal at the end of last year.
 |
Peter Williams in happier times and a bowler hat. |
Wilsons had contacted the SRA after it went through Williams’ files and suspected that he might have dishonestly helped a client conceal the full value of a property from a mortgage lender. The SDT ruled that he had. Williams was struck off and ordered to pay £195,000 in costs. He appealed, and last week the High Court ruled that the SDT had – at least in part – bugged it up. Mrs Justice Carr held that the tribunal “could not fairly find him to be dishonest without the most careful consideration of what he said in his defence. He should have had the opportunity to respond to the SRA’s allegations against him orally in the witness box, and to be judged on that evidence.” But before Williams could crack open the champagne she added that she dismissed his appeal against a finding of want of integrity.
Williams and the SRA have now been told to put their heads together and work out how the appeal might move forward as quickly as possible.
Simon Barnett, a partner at Michelmores, said that "any sanction in relation to the finding of lack of integrity has not yet been considered. Therefore, we are unable to comment further at this time. The events giving rise to the case predate Peter Williams joining Michelmores in 2012. As a Firm, our priority remains to ensure that we continue to provide an excellent service to our clients.”
Comments
101
94