|
Charge
|
The charges against Mr Harrison were:
1. Between on or about 1 November 2004
and 17 January 2005 John Harrison, a Fellow of the Institute, then
practising on his own under the style “Tyneside Legal Services”
from 81 Park Road, Walls End, Tyne and Wear, NE28 6RA, in the
course of carrying out instructions for the preparation and
execution of a Will for his client failed, or failed properly, to
assess whether his said client had sufficient mental capacity for
the purpose of giving such instructions and/or executing a Will;
and/or
Between the said dates the said John Harrison,
in the course of the said instructions failed to attend upon his
client for the purpose of executing his Will, thereby failing to
ensure his said client’s freedom of choice and/or the impartiality
of the said John Harrison’s advice as was the duty of a Solicitor
under paragraph 11.01 of the Law Society’s Guide to the
Professional Conduct of Solicitors (1999 ed.)
WHEREBY disrepute was brought upon the Institute
or its members.
2. Between on or about 1 March 2006 and
30 June 2006 the said John Harrison, practising on his own under
the style “Tyneside Legal Services” from 81 Park Road, Walls End,
Tyne and Wear, NE28 6RA, in the course of carrying out instructions
for the administration of the affairs and/or estate of C failed to
use his best endeavours to ensure the safety and security of
certain documents, namely a house clearance invoice and a B.T.
telephone invoice and miscellaneous utility bills pertaining to the
affairs of the said C in consequence whereof the said documents
were lost or mislaid WHEREBY disrepute was brought
upon the Institute or its members.
3. Between 11 August 2009 and 19
November 2009 the said John Harrison, a Fellow of the Institute,
failed to respond, alternatively failed adequately to respond, to
the written investigatory requests of I, an investigating Officer
of the Institute, concerning an investigation into certain
professional matters as directed by the Appeals Committee on 21 May
2009, it having been his duty to so respond by virtue of Rule 27
(g) of the said Rules WHEREBY disrepute was
brought upon the Institute or its members.
|