A solicitor’s appeal to overturn his strike off has been dismissed by the High Court.
Jack Grunhut was struck off in January last year after the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found four allegations against him proved. Grunhut, admitted in April 2019, worked as a consultant solicitor for Taylor Rose until May 2020 and, between April 2020 and June 2022, worked as a consultant for Middlesex firm Berlad Graham LLP.
The tribunal found Grunhut had drafted and obtained a deed of trust which he knew was false and misleading in that it purported to have been made on 19 June 2019 but was signed on 15 June 2020.
He was also found to have knowingly provided false and misleading information to Berlad Graham by stating he did not have any personal or financial relationships with any clients of the firm which had not been disclosed, in circumstances where he had received two personal loans from clients of the firm which had not been disclosed.
The tribunal also found proved that Grunhut gave an undertaking to a third party to pay more than £290,000 to that third party upon completion of a property sale without his client’s consent; and failed to comply with anti-money laundering procedures and conduct adequate client due diligence.
Grunhut appealed against the tribunal’s findings, sanction and costs order.
He argued that the SDT had failed to take into account he had been trained and mentored by two solicitors, one of whom was subject to a two-year suspension in 2014 before he undertook to remove his name from the roll. Grunhut said his mentors ‘were not suitable for these roles because of their conduct’. Grunhut argued the SDT ‘failed to have regard to the volume of his work (1,400 files) and that errors can occur’.
Mrs Justice Lang said the tribunal was entitled to find the allegations proved and its decision on the allegations and sanction ‘was not wrong or unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity’.
Referring to sanction, the judge said the tribunal ‘correctly directed itself in law’ and was ‘justified in concluding that this case did not fall within the small residual category of cases where striking off would be disproportionate in all the circumstances, and that there were no exceptional circumstances’.
The judgment said there was no basis upon which the judge could ‘properly interfere with the tribunal’s decision on costs and find it to be wrong’.
