Home page
Home Page
About this site
Cases Pending
Site Updates
Site Map (test)
Similar Sites
Information for Victims

Latest News

News Roundup



Restricted Area
Hosted by:
Web design
Helping hands for business


Back to Rogue Traders case summary.

Back to Documents in support of Rogue Traders case.

Back to Lawyers for your Business

Back to Solicitors Lie Detector


On 18 November 2004 Daultrey was restored to the roll of solicitors. I wonder if the GMC will restore all the struck off doctors?


See also Daultrey's citing in the matter of Donnellan & Co, from where he also pretended to be a solicitor.


No. 4614/1982

a Solicitor
- and -


Mr. Walford   (in the Chair)
Mr. Cook
Col. Singleton

of the Solicitors' Disciplinary Tribunal
constituted under the Solicitors' Act 1974

An application dated the 15th January 1982 was duly made on
behalf of The Law Society by David Michael MacMichael of No. 72/73/74
Duke Street, Chelmsford, Essex, solicitor, that Steven  Richard 
Daultrey, of No. 120 Selwyn Avenue, Highams Park, London E4., solicitor,
might be required to answer the allegations contained in the affidavit
which accompanied the application and that such Order might be made
as the Tribunal should think right.
The allegations made were that the respondent had:
(1)  failed to comply with the Solicitors' Accounts Rules 1975
in that he notwithstanding the provisions of Rule 8 of the
said Rules drew out of Client account money other than that
permitted by Rule 7 of the said Rules;
(2)  been guilty of conduct unbefitting a solicitor in that he
(a)  utilised money held and received by him on behalf
of certain clients for the purposes of other clients;
(b)  made untruthful and misleading statements to his clients,

The Tribunal heard the application at the Court Room No. 60
Carey Street, London WC2, on the 24th March 1982, when the said David Michael
MacMichael, a consultant in the  firm of Leonard Gray & Co., of No. 72/73/74
Duke Street, Chelmsford, Essex, solicitors, appeared for the applicant
and Mr G Hooper of Counsel appeared for the respondent.
The evidence before the Tribunal consisted of the admissions of the
respondent and is set out in paragraphs 1 to 5 inclusive hereunder:
1.    The respondent was admitted a solicitor on the 1st April 1977 and
at all material times carried on practice in partnership under the style
of "Montague Daultrey" ("the firm") at Nos. 445/7 High Road, Woodford Green,
Essex.  The partnership was terminated on the 10th December 1980.  On the
26th March 1981 Mr Calvert an assistant to Mr Harold Greenhaigh FCA,
The Law Society's Investigation Accountant, attending at the firm"s office
at No. 445/7 High Road, Woodford Green, to inspect the firm's books of
account, pursuant to notice duly given under the Solicitor's Accounts Rules
1975 and the Solicitor's Trust Accounts Rules 1975.
2.    Mr Calvert investigated the firm's accounts as at the 28th February
1981 and he found that they were in order.  He further found that the
books of the firm were currently in compliance with the Solicitor's
Accounts Rules; however, he found certain irregularities which had
occurred in a matter dealt with by the respondent.
3.    The firm, in the person of the respondent, had acted for Mr A J Pearce
in connection with a property transaction.  On the 26th November 1980 the
relevant account in the Client's ledger showed a credit balance of 44,620.61.
It was then charged with a Client account payment of 22,642.05  in respect
of a telegraphic transfer for the account of a Mrs M P Wicks, thereby
reducing the credit balance on the account to 21,978.56.  The Tribunal
were told that the respondent held a Power of Attorney on behalf of
Mr and Mrs Wicks who had moved to America and urgently wanted the proceeds
of sale of their house here for the purchase of a house in that country.
Unfortunately, this Power of Attorney was defective and the purchasers of Mr &
Mrs Wick's house would not complete.  The respondent had then used monies
belonging to another client, Mr Pearce, a personal friend, to pay
Mr and Mrs Wicks.  In order to conceal the improper payment the
respondent had instructed the firm's bookkeeper to make a false entry
charging it to Mr Pearce's account.  The cash shortage of 22,642.05
was eliminated on the 15th December 1980 following a transfer from Office
bank account of 3,932.25, together with the introduction of funds
totalling 18,709.80 from the personal resources of Mr Montague, a partner
in the firm.
4.    In May 1978 the respondent commenced acting for a Mr Kerry Harris
who was claiming a sum of money by way of commission from his former
employers.  The respondent conducted the matter properly until October 1979
but thereafter took no steps in the matter.  In August 1980 in response
to an enquiry from Mr Kerry Harris the respondent told him that he had
negotiated terms of settlement which Mr Kerry Harris found acceptable.
The respondent had not in fact concluded any negotiations but in pursuance
of the deception which he had practised upon his client he wrote to him
a letter on the 6th August 1980 enclosing a cheque for 250.00 which he
described as "the first part payment received".  The respondent had
obtained the 250.00 by extracting that sum from a Building Society
account in the joint names of his partner, Mr Montague and himself.
5.    In November 1979 the respondent commenced proceedings on behalf
of a client of the firm, Mr Jarman, for the recovery of 3,000.  By
January 1980 a Defence had been delivered but thereafter the respondent
did nothing to forward the proceedings and when in October 1980 Mr Jarman
enquired as to the position the respondent told Mr Jarman that he had
signed judgement and was expecting the balance of the judgement debt to
be paid shortly.  Pursuant-to this untruth he handed Mr Jarman a cheque
for 250.00 "on account".  Once again the respondent has utilised the
joint Building Society account in the name of his partner and himself.
6.    On behalf of the respondent it was submitted that he was a young
lawyer, aged 29, with considerable academic ability.  At the age of
25, almost immediately after his admission, he had entered into partnership
with Mr Montague.  The practice had thrived; there were soon three
partners and a staff of fourteen.   Unfortunately, the respondent's
experience did not equip him to cope with the rapidly expanding practice and
to shoulder the responsibilities involved.  His father, an alcoholic,
occasioned both the respondent and his mother considerable distress; his
fiancee had broken off their engagement; he had let matters slide.  He
had used funds held in a joint account with his partner Mr Montague in
order to finance the fictions upon which had had embarked; he had made
no concealment of the fact that  he had done so.  The respondent was now
employed as an assistant solicitor  by a firm who had full knowledge of
his background and wanted to continue to employ him.  He hoped that he
would be allowed to continue as an assistant solicitor, gaining now the
practical experience which would have stood him in good stead previously
and to transfer in due course to the Bar.
The Tribunal FIND the allegations to have substantiated.  This  is
a somewhat sad case but the respondent has deliberately misapplied monies
and has been guilty of deceit and in all the circumstances there is, in
the Tribunal's view, only one appropriate course open to them and they
ORDER that the name of the respondent Steven Richard Daultrey, of
120 Selwyn Avenue, Highams Park, London Ek, be struck off the Roll of
Solicitors of the Supreme Court and that he do pay to the applicant the
applicant's costs of and incidental to this application and enquiry
including the costs of the, accountant employed by the Law Society to inspect
the firm's books of account, such costs to be taxed by one of the Taxing
Masters of the Supreme Court.

Dated this    3rd      day of      June,    1982
On behalf of the Tribunal