Automated report. Written from the official Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal judgment linked below and published after automated checks; not read by an editor before publication. Corrections: editor@lawweek.co.uk.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal has reprimanded Peter Albany Baker, a former partner at Freeths LLP, after he admitted breaching the SRA Accounts Rules and Principle 2 of the SRA Principles over an unauthorised payment from a client account.
The tribunal approved a Statement of Agreed Facts and Proposed Outcome dated 30 September 2026, in which Mr Baker admitted that on 27 January 2022 he authorised a payment of £3,806 from the account of Client C to pay a completion fee on a property for Client B, without authority. A separate allegation that he had submitted six title reports to a bank stating searches had been carried out when none had been undertaken was withdrawn by the SRA after it said it could no longer discharge the burden of proof, following further documents provided by the firm. The tribunal ordered Mr Baker to pay costs of £1,986.00.
Key points
- The tribunal reprimanded Mr Baker and ordered him to pay £1,986.00 in costs.
- The case was dealt with by way of an Agreed Outcome, approved on the papers on 5 October 2026.
- A separate allegation involving six title reports submitted to a bank, and an associated allegation of recklessness, was withdrawn by the SRA with the tribunal’s permission.
- The tribunal found the respondent’s culpability was low, with no identifiable harm caused to any individual.
What happened
Mr Baker was a partner at Freeths LLP specialising in real estate work, primarily in the commercial sector, before retiring from the partner role in November 2022 and continuing as a consultant on a zero-hour contract until 2 October 2023. Following his departure, a review of his files was undertaken, which resulted in the firm reporting his conduct to the SRA. The review identified that he had authorised a payment of £3,806.00 from Client C’s account to pay a completion fee on a property unrelated to that client. The tribunal recorded that while it was unclear whether the completion fee related to a purchase for Client B or another client, Mr Baker accepted that the payment did not relate to a purchase made by Client C.
The findings
Mr Baker admitted breaching Rule 5.1 of the Accounts Rules, which precludes withdrawal of client money for a purpose other than that for which it was held, and Rule 5.2, which required him to ensure withdrawals were appropriately authorised and supervised. He also admitted breaching Principle 2, which requires solicitors to act in a way that upholds public trust and confidence in the profession. The tribunal noted that an allegation of manifest incompetence had been raised in the SRA’s original statement but was not pursued by the parties, and the tribunal made no finding on it.
The tribunal considered the respondent’s level of culpability was low, that there was no identifiable harm caused to any individual and that the risk of such harm was negligible. It noted that Mr Baker had demonstrated genuine insight into his misconduct and assessed the likelihood of future misconduct as low.
Outcome
The tribunal concluded that the misconduct was too serious to warrant taking no action, but that its seriousness justified a sanction at the lowest level and that neither the protection of the public nor the reputation of the profession required a greater sanction. It therefore approved the Agreed Outcome and imposed a reprimand, together with the agreed costs of £1,986.00. The decision was dated and filed with the Law Society on 16 October 2026. Mr Baker may appeal the tribunal’s decision to the High Court.