AC-2024-LON-000040 - [2025] EWHC 1965 (Admin)

Fecha: 28-Jul-2025

Sanction

Sanction

27.

With respect to sanction, having regard to the Guidance Note on Sanctions (June 2022), the Tribunal assessed the seriousness of the misconduct by considering Mr Cottam’s culpability, the level of harm caused together with any aggravating or mitigating factors.

28.

With respect to mitigating factors, the Tribunal took account of Mr Cottam’s “unblemished career” and “good character in all respects.” The Tribunal further acknowledged that Mr Cottam had been a victim of arson and death threats, which led the circumstances in respect of which he was before the Tribunal. The Tribunal also recognised that Mr Cottam had engaged with the proceedings throughout and had attempted to make good the shortfall in the client account to a limited extent by making a repayment of £804 and by putting the business premises up for sale and offering to sell the family home.

29.

Against these matters, Mr Cottam accepted before the Tribunal that if the allegation of dishonesty in Allegation 1.3 were to be upheld, it would follow that the sanction should be that he is struck from the Roll. Further, the Tribunal considered the following aggravating factors to be relevant:

There was a high level of culpability. Mr Cottam’s motivation was to prop up the firm and address the cashflow issues. Mr Cottam was in a position of trust as a solicitor and custodian of client monies. He had direct control and responsibility as a sole director, COLP and COFA. He was an experienced solicitor throughout.

ii)

The harm caused by the misconduct was evident in the shortfall on the client account of £175,115.44. The harm to the reputation of the profession was significant.

iii)

Mr Cottam’s conduct was aggravated by his dishonesty. The improper transfers were deliberate, calculated and repeated and continued over a significant period of time. A year into the investigation, Mr Cottam sought to blame his cashier, TN, for the improper transfers.

iv)

The Tribunal was unable to find genuine insight into the extent of his misconduct as he had tried to avoid responsibility by blaming TN. Whilst Mr Cottam had made admissions to the improper nature of the transfers at an early stage and had admitted his responsibility for them, he had subsequently resiled from that position.

30.

Within the foregoing context, the Tribunal reached the conclusion that the only appropriate sanction in the circumstances was for Mr Cottam to be struck from the Roll. Mr Cottam was ordered to pay costs in the sum of £4,000.