A ‘heartless’ lawyer brought misery to families in
A ‘heartless’ lawyer brought misery to families in a three year campaign of plundering client estates, a court heard today (Wed.
)
To stave of financial difficulties within his practice and to service a large mortgage, the 61-year-old syphoned of nearly pnds stlng 450,000 – even founding a secret ‘slush fund.
‘
And corrupt solicitor Richard Martin drew up three sets of bogus accounts to ensure his governing body, the Law Society, were kept at bay during routine inspections of the books.
London’s Southwark Crown Court heard that Martin began ‘robbing Peter to pay Paul’ remaining optimistic he could repair the damage he wrought.
But in May 1998 the rising tide of complaints from clients ‘fobbed off’ with excuses sparked a full investigation into his two firms, Webster Butcher and Johnstone, of Balham, and Donovan and Co, Tooting, both south London, and the dishonesty was brought to light.
Martin, of Coxdean, Epsom Downs, Surrey, admitted nine charges of false accounting and three offences of furnishing false information between May 1994 and April 1998.
He further asked for 348 offences of false accounting to be taken into consideration.
Jailing the bankrupted defendant for two years, Judge Geoffrey Rivlin, QC, said: ‘These offences involve a very serious and deliberate breach of trust and persisted for a period of at least three years.
‘
He said the solicitor was mainly concerned with conveyancing and probate work, the latter giving rise to the charges.
‘You deliberately mismanaged this work, channeling funds away into the firm’s account and covered this up by falsifying accounts.
‘This was a rolling crime, with monies being taken away from one account to make payments to another.
‘
The judge said an aggravating feature was that some of the beneficiaries of the estate ‘at a very vulnerable time for them’ had suffered greatly ‘in terms of aggravation and distress’ because of Martin’s dishonesty.
But he added: ‘You fobbed them off in a quite heartless way with excuses about how matters were progressing.
‘
The solicitors dishonesty was said to have ‘started in earnest’ in May 1995, the judge saying the total amount misappropriated being pnds stlng 448,175.
‘The money went towards supporting your firm and also your personal life,’ said the judge, noting none of the missing funds had been recovered.
And he said ‘at least half’ of the stolen cash, pnds stlng 238,000, had been used by Martin to finance the pnds stlng 350,000 on his then home in Heath Drive, Sutton.
The judge said he took into account the guilty pleas entered by the remorseful defendant, described as a hard working familyman.
Judge Rivlin said it appeared the offending began against a background of ‘financial crises and mismanagement’ at Donovan and Co, which was effectively acquired by Martin, when he was suffering from stress and the burden of work.
And he noted a string of references submitted by people ‘who saw and still see in you much that is admirable.
‘
He added: ‘These people are entitled to think the man they believed they knew so well is very different from the man who committed these offences.
‘
The judge said the convictions was ‘obviously ruinous’ for Martin and took into the account the delay in brining the matter to court ‘that in itself is a substantial punishment.
‘
He said it was the delay and the points in Martin’s favour that had saved the solicitor from ‘a long term sentence’ of four years or more that would have required the defendant to serve two thirds of the term in prison.
He said the two year sentence would mean Martin would spend half the term behind bars.
After Martin was led to the cells, briefly pausing to acknowledge his family in the public gallery, the judge complained: ‘The sentence I ought to have passed in this case has been effectively skewed by the length of time which has elapsed between the Law Society first coming onto the scene and learning the defendant had been mismanaging funds, and the time this case eventually arrived at court.
‘
He said it was ‘important and necessary’ cases should be dealt with promptly when there were full admission and ordered a written explanation from the prosecuting authorities.
Earlier, Christopher Foulkes, prosecuting, said Martin’s actions had caused ‘particular financial hardship’ to some of the beneficiaries of wills he administered.
He said some victims felt ‘very let down’ by the legal profession, and complained they had ‘absolutely no faith in lawyers.
‘
John Donnelly, defending, said his client admitted some victims were left ‘financially stretched’ because of the delays he caused.
But he said Martin accepted his ‘wrongdoing.
.
.
there was no ducking and diving.
‘
Mr Donnelly said the two companies had been ‘haemorrhaging’ money, and ‘regrettably, Martin did not take stock.
‘
He said much of the money was directed at keeping the business afloat, and believing he could eventually repay the money, Martin ‘was robbing Peter to pay Paul.
‘
The barrister said: ‘This defendant, through poor management perhaps, found himself in a financial mess and acted wrongly from the start.
‘The case is a travesty.
That a man in his position of trust and in his senior years should fall from grace, but fall he did.
‘At first he believed he could turn things around but there came a point he should have known better.
‘
The court heard that for the last two years Martin has worked as a taxi driver for Age Concern and taken City and Guilds qualifications to work as a gardener.
ends
