In re Roger Pitts-Tucker

Sean J Murphy

16 years ago

An article in the 'Law Society Gazette' relating to a decision of the
Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT), online at
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/in-practice/sdt-decisions/roger-pitts-tucker'Roger Pitts-Tucker
'Thursday 08 October 2009* Application 9722-2007
* Admitted 1973
* Hearing 18 December–13 November 2008
* Reasons 11 August 2009'The SDT ordered that the respondent, of Pitts-Tucker & Co, 2 Priory
Court, Pilgrim Street, London EC4V 6DE, should be suspended from
practice for six months to commence on 1 March 2009. The respondent had
been guilty of conduct unbefitting a solicitor and in breach of his
professional obligation in rule 1 of the Solicitors Practice Rules 1990
not to do anything in the course of practising as a solicitor which
compromised or impaired, or was likely to compromise or impair, the
solicitor's independence and integrity, the good repute of the solicitor
and the profession, and the solicitor's proper standard of work in that,
in the course of practising as a solicitor for BFI Ltd and/or Mr B he
had acted in about 13 transactions in the period 1999 to 2003, the
details and circumstances of which were summarised below, whereby his
client had purported to sell and convey feudal titles to third parties,
notwithstanding that the transactions were dubious in that they bore
indicators of possible fraud as more particularly detailed below; the
respondent had known that to be the case; the respondent had known that
the purpose for which his client had involved him as a solicitor during
the above period was to lend credibility to the client and the
transactions, and he should have known that he was assisting the client
in taking unfair advantage of the other party to the transaction; he had
known that the other party to the transaction had no separate legal
representation, and had had no or no adequate opportunity to satisfy
themselves as to his client's right to convey the feudal title or as to
the effectiveness of the conveyance before parting with their money; he
had known that his firm's role in the transactions was being
misrepresented to the purchasers but had failed to take any steps to
correct that and had failed to advise them to instruct their own
solicitor; the circumstances were such that the respondent should have
suspected that his client was not intending to convey, and could not
convey, good title or, indeed, any rights to the feudal titles that were
the subject of the transactions; the circumstances were such that the
respondent should have suspected that the transactions were not
effective to convey the feudal titles; the respondent had failed to make
such enquiries as he should have made, as more particularly detailed
below, so as to satisfy himself as to the bona fides of his client and
of the transactions; the respondent had continued to act for the client
in circumstances where he should have declined to do so no later than
the autumn of 2002; he had made deceitful representations to third
parties and/or prospective purchasers calculated to lend credibility to
the transactions and/or to his client and/or to encourage the
prospective purchaser to enter into the transactions, not having known
that the transactions were dubious at the outset, but having come to be
apprised of their true nature; the respondent had made a deceitful
representation to Mr G as to the Law Society's position regarding KGF's
complaint; he had purportedly taken statutory declarations when the
maker of the statutory declaration had not been present and in matters
where he was acting for one of the parties in the transaction or his
firm was otherwise interested; he had purportedly witnessed the
transferor's signature to deeds of transfer when the transferor had not
signed the deed in his presence; and further in conducting himself in
the manner set out above the respondent had acted with conscious
impropriety and therefore dishonestly (in that the respondent's conduct
was dishonest by the ordinary standards of honest behaviour and he knew
that he was transgressing those standards). The SDT had concluded that
the feudal title transactions were dubious and that the respondent had
on a number of occasions been put on notice of that. Whilst there was a
market for such titles, it was a controversial, even eccentric, market
and it was the manner in which the respondent had allowed those
transactions to be conducted by 'rubber stamping' his client's paperwork
that had compelled the SDT to conclude that the respondent's conduct was
dishonest by the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people. The
SDT was satisfied so that it was sure that the respondent had turned a
blind eye to the nature of the transactions, the nature of his
involvement in them and the questionable bona fides of Mr B and his
business. The respondent knew that what he was doing was dishonest by
those same standards. The SDT accepted that there was a time when the
respondent had not known that there was anything dubious about the
transactions, but that position had changed as the respondent had been
repeatedly put on notice of concerns about his client's activities. The
SDT had carefully weighed the need to protect the public against the
respondent's particular circumstances. It had taken into account the
fact that the profession's regulator, while being fully aware of the
nature of the respondent's conduct, had granted him unconditional
practising certificates and had permitted him to continue in practice
over a substantial period time. The SDT had found delay on the part of
the SRA in prosecuting the case and that was a matter to be taken into
account when deciding on the proportionate sanction to be imposed. The
SDT had also taken into account the respondent's good character
exemplified by his references and that the conduct complained of was out
of character. The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £80,000.'(End quote)An earlier newspaper report indicated that Pitts-Tucker had been acting
for Anthony Boada of British Feudal Investments and that the 13 titles
'related to areas named as Bywell in England; Mount Nagle, Carrowreagh
and Clonakilty in Ireland; Clissa and Nona in Croatia; De Laci in
France; Halberstadt in Germany; and Bovanti in Albania'
(https://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article5187689.ece)
In my article on Irish 'Feudal Titles' at
https://homepage.eircom.net/~seanjmurphy/chiefs/feudaltitles.htm I had
concluded in 2003 that 'the statement that there existed a Lordship of
the Manor of Mount Nagle' was 'based on brazen fabrication'.Sean Murphy

Solicitor accused of aiding 'bogus' trade in feudal titles – The Times

Posted November 19th, 2008 in disciplinary procedures, news, peerages & dignities, professional conduct, solicitors by sally

"A solicitor was accused yesterday of being at the centre of a dishonest trade in bogus feudal titles sold to Americans and other foreigners."

Full story

The Times, 19th November 2008

Purchasers should always seek the advice of an independent solicitor/attorney before parting with their money.

No one in their right mind would purchase a title from either Manorial Counsel Ltd or nobility.co.uk