A scandal-hit solicitor who drew up a client’s wil

A scandal-hit solicitor who drew up a client’s will which left cash to him and his son wept as he was suspended today (THURS).

Eric Bell, 50, also moved a massive amount of customers’ cash into an account in his name, and then failed to return it.

And he bought a house off another client – representing both himself and her in the deal.

Bell blamed a former business partner, his accountant, a rival firm, depression, divorce, and even nosey neighbours for his problems.

But he was banned from practising indefinitely when he appeared at the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal in central London today.

Committee chairman Laurence Gilford told him: ‘This was a catalogue of regulatory breaches, and it’s clear you failed to pay proper attention to regulatory matters.

‘

The hearing was told how Bell was practising as Eric A.

Bell & Co, of Market Place, Bedlington, Northumberland, when the scandal came to light in August 1998.

A Law Society investigation had revealed accounting problems, and bearded Bell was ordered to sort them out.

It then emerged that there was a cash shortage of more than pnds stlg 2,000 in client accounts, caused by unallocated tranfers.

The shortfall then snowballed to more than pnds stlg 19,711, caused by the balance of costs which had not previously been charged to the client.

Gerald Lynch, for the Law Society, told the hearing: ‘If you transfer from the client account to the office account, you are not entitled to derive benefit to the extent to which the office account is enlarged.

‘The concern is the amount of time these mistakes were in the account.

They should clearly have been attended to.

‘He says it should have been picked up by his accountant, but the ultimate obligation rests with the solicitor.

The buck stops with him.

‘

The tribunal then heard how Bell stepped into further hot water over two long-standing clients.

First he arranged to buy a house in Abbotsford, Ellington, off Patricia Pape.

But when she died, he carried out the purchase through her aunt Dorothy Russell, and acted for both himself and her in the deal.

Mr Lynch added: ‘I say that’s a situation in which a conflict of interests must arise.

Either the estate should have been separately represented, of he should have been.

‘It was improper for him to act for both sides.

‘

Mrs Russell then asked Bell to help draw up her will, in which she left him and his son half her money and property.

Mr Lynch said: ‘No independent advice was obtained or insisted upon.

He went on to prepare the will.

‘

But Mrs Russell later allegedly heard from a neighbour of Bell’s that the solicitor was already living in the Ellington house and had not paid for it.

Bell says the claim was untrue, but Mrs Russell made a complaint to another firm, which was then forwarded to the Law Society.

Although Bell admitted the facts when he appeared at the hearing today, his solicitor Michael Ord told the panel the problems were caused by ‘hystorical and personal difficulties, and a combination of events.

‘

He explained that Bell was previously in partnership with Geoffrey Graham, and the firm – Graham & Bell – had a second office in Newcastle.

But one day, Graham disappeared and returned several days later announcing that he was termimating the partnership and kicking Bell out of the office.

Weeks later, Graham again vanished, and Bell was left to sort out the paperwork of the Newcastle office, which was in ‘disarray’.

Mr Ord said the pressure and amount of work – coupled with Bell’s acrimonious divorce – caused many of the problems.

He added: ‘Mr Bell had been betrayed by his former partner, in whom he had placed substantial trust.

‘

Bell moved cash from clients funds into an account in his name because, he claimed, it would make the customers more interest.

But, because Graham had left the books and files in such a mess, no addresses could be found for the clients, so the cash could not be returned.

The money is still sitting in an account today, and Bell has not touched it.

Mr Ord said: ‘Not one penny is missing from the client account as a result, and the account it in balance.

‘He is not seeking to hide it, and has not taken a penny from it.

‘

In relation to the purchase of the house, Bell claims Mrs Russell approached him after her niece’s death and asked if he still wanted to buy the house.

She denies this, claiming he approached her.

Bell also says he offered her pnds stlg 45,000, but she would only accept pnds stlg 40,000.

But Mr Ord added: ‘Mrs Russell says she does not recall this conversation.

‘But he accepts that the estate should have been separately represented.

‘

The tribunal was told Bell claims the allegation made to Mrs Russell about him living in the house and not paying for it was untrue.

He added that it was made through a rival firm, Sanderson McCreath & Edney, and that they were trying to woo back Mrs Russell, an ex-client of theirs.

Mr Ord said: ‘On hearing the allegation from the neighbours, Mrs Russell didn’t know what to do, and felt she had been let down.

‘Mr Bell says he had paid for it, and it was just scandal-mongering.

‘

Bell’s company, which had a pnds stlg 100,000 a year turnover yielding a pnds stlg 45,000 annual profit, has since been taken over.

Mr Ord told the panel: ‘He feels a deep sense of shame appearing here before you.

‘He has let himself and the profession down, and he is regretful and apologises for it.

The substantial personal pride he feels at being a member of the profession has been taken away.

‘

Mr Ord added that, because of ‘unpleasant, adverse, and ill-informed local publicity’, Bell now feels he cannot leave his house.

He added: ‘Mr Bell feels the eyes of the world are upon him, and feels he is viewed as something which is not even alleged today – that he is a dishonest man.

‘

The hearing was told Bell was ordered to pay pnds stlf 300 to a client in a separate case, but only did so recently.

He also failed to respond to some letters from the Law Society.

Bell admitted conflict of interest in a conveyance and in the preparation of a will, breach of solicitors’ accounts rules, failing to reply to correspondence, and failing to act in accordance with an award.

Chairman Mr Gilford said it was a ‘catalogue of breaches’, but added: ‘The tribunal accepts you haven’t acted dishonestly or in bad faith, and have been influenced by the extensive mitigating circumstances.

‘

Bell, a solicitor since 1988, was suspended indefinitely and ordered to be pay costs to be agreed.

Graham was suspended in 1996 after the ‘outfall’ of their partnership.

On that occasion, Bell had been fined.

ends