An experienced probate solicitor has been struck off the roll for consistently overcharging clients for administering an estate.
Harold Anthony Newell qualified as a solicitor in 1963. Despite working in law for more than 50 years, he spent the latter stages of his career unreasonably overcharging his vulnerable or grieving clients.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) accused Newell of transferring money from client accounts into the firm, TS Barkes & Son’s, office account without formally notifying his clients.
Newell informed the tribunal, via a submitted letter, that his firm charged between £150 and £175 plus VAT per hour for legal services. However, the tribunal found frequent cases of many clients being charged over 228% more than the maximum hourly limit would suggest.
Following a number of heart attacks in 2008 and subsequent ill health, including open heart surgery in 2015, Newell had failed to adhere to Legal Ombudsman (LeO) compliance guidelines, attributing his ill health for any regulatory oversights and omissions.
After being struck off the roll, Newell was ordered to pay £44,118 costs.
Harold Anthony Newell, solicitor in the case, commented:
“I always tried to comply with the spirit of the rules but would often be under too much pressure of work to deal with the formalities.
“I always tried to make payments on account to beneficiaries during the administration period. The beneficiaries who had complained would have had as much as 95% of their share and there had been minimal impact on them.”
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal statement said:
“Newell’s actions resulted in his clients paying without prior notification greater fees than had been agreed and/or were fair and reasonable. None of the files showed any evidence of the work actually carried out and no attendance notes and his clients, whether they were executors or his co-executors, would have had any information on the true costs of his work.
“’A solicitor acting with integrity would have actively managed his workload, engaged effective assistance and prioritised his dealings with the LeO and county court.
“On his own account he had let the papers build up on his desk and then sought to shift the responsibility to junior staff for not adequately bringing them to his attention.”
