New duty to warn other conveyancers of client's suspected fraud?

Scotland’s supreme civil court’s decision in Frank Houlgate Investment Company Ltd v Biggart Baillie LLP [2014] CSIH 79 has raised some interesting questions about transactional fraud and could have an important impact on conveyancer’s liability when they act for a dishonest client. 

The facts involve an investment company, the plaintiff, which lent money to the client of  the solicitor, the defendant.  The security for the loan was not owned by the client  and was in fact worthless.  During the course of the transaction the solicitor became aware of he client’s attempt to defraud but nonetheless continued to act and as a consequence of the fraud the investment company suffered a loss. Acting on the instruction of the client the solicitor did not warn the representative of the investment company of the fraud.

The three judges of the CSIH all agreed that the client’s solicitor was liable to the investment company for the losses , although they were not unanimous regarding the basis for that liability.

Lord Menzies held that the solicitor was under an obligation immediately to disclose to the investment company’s representative,  the that the client had admitted fraud and that the security was worthless. That obligation flowed from a continuing implied representation to the other party to the transaction that they are not aware of any fundamental dishonesty or fraud which might make the security for the transaction worthless. Notwithstanding the duty of confidentiality the solicitor was incumbent on a solicitor to act honestly at all times.  Not surprisingly Lord Menzies further held on the facts that he would have found the solicitor liable as an accessory to fraud in any event.

Lord Malcolm  relying  instead on Donoghue v Stevenson held that the solicitor was liable in negligence. He held that it was ‘preferable simply to rely upon the broad concept of culpa [fault], in the sense of failure by a professional to use the care and skill required in the circumstances’. He added: ‘In the present case the actionable negligence arises because [the defendant] came to learn of the fraud and knew, or should have foreseen, that further harm to the pursuers could ensue if he did not take care to protect them.’

There remains a question mark about the soundness of Lord Malcolm’s reasoning since there appears to  little authority around to support the existence of a duty of care by a solicitor to a third party, though the more interesting aspect to this decision is the obligation  to override the duty of confidentiality once a solicitor becomes aware of fraud. 

The bearing of a Scottish decision on practice in England may not be direct, but the case does give rise to some interesting questions.  If these circumstances were to happen in England it is clear the  solicitor  once knowing of the fraud should have immediately desisted from undertaking any further work ( without doing anything to ‘tip’ the client off ) and to then report the incident to the Solicitor Regulation Authority and the National Crime Agency   If there was then no intervention by the SRA/NCA the solicitor should have then terminated the retainer.  The question is whether in the light of the case of Frank Houlgate there would also be a duty once the retainer came to an end to bring the matter to the attention of the other parties in the transaction remains unclear.  How far would that duty extend?  Would the solicitor need to alert another solicitor appointed by the client when approached for the release of the file following the termination of the retainer?

The other question of interest which emerges from this case is that if a solicitor comes across  information, if considered properly and in line with SRA and Law Society obligations,  would show that the client could be acting dishonestly, but the solicitor fails to read or to appreciate the importance of that evidence, would that be sufficient for a lender of other third party to rely on the decision of Houlgate and seek redress for loss. Could this now present a lender with an alternative route to the solicitor’s insurers when loss is sustained due to fraud?

Only time will tell though one thing is for certain it is an argument which I am sure a lender will look to run sometime in the very near future. 

Article by David Pett Director/Solicitor - MJP Conveyancing

The death of simultaneous exchange and completion?

The time between exchange and completion has shortened considerably and more and more transactions are concluded through  simultaneous exchange of contracts and completion.

The recent Court of Appeal decision in Santander v R. A. Legal Solicitors has cast serious doubt on whether this practice is exposing conveyancing solicitors to the possibility of a breach of trust claim

The decision at first instance in Santander v R. A. Legal Solicitors  [2013] EWHC 1380 (QB)  confirmed and clarified the Court of Appeal's decision in Nationwide v Davison’s [2012] EWCA Civ 1626 as to when solicitors should be relieved from the consequences of their breach of trust.

The facts are as follows.  R A Legal Solicitors had acted for the purchaser of a property, for which Santander’s predecessor, Abbey National, had made mortgage funds available to the buyers solicitors to facility the buyers purchase.

Unknown to the buyer’s solicitors, those solicitors acting for the seller had been acting dishonestly, and the buyers solicitors had transferred the purchase sums before a first charge in favour of the lender had been acquired and an existing charge discharged.

The Queen's Bench Division held that, whilst the buyer’s solicitors had acted in breach of trust in releasing the funds advanced, the they were relieved of all liability in respect of that breach since the shortcomings of the solicitors handling in relation to the transaction were not an effective cause of the lender’s loss.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal did not agree and  found in favour of the lender finding:

“The failings of RAL ( buyers solicitors ) formed part of a larger picture of the shoddy performance of a conveyancing transaction from start to finish, which leaves me in no doubt that it would not be fair to excuse the firm from liability, in whole or in part.”

Significantly, and central to the success of the appeal  is the fact the Buyers solicitors  sent an unqualified certificate  of title to Abbey on the 13th July, even though they were waiting to inspect a copy of a 1986 Transfer. Their view was if the Transfer contained anything untoward Abbey’s money could be returned. This was done in order to speed up the eventual process of exchange and completion.

Condemning this practice the Court of Appeal stated:

“The appropriate way of dealing with delays is to persuade lenders to move faster or remit the funds to be held to order in advance of an unqualified CoT. To my mind the pretense that the investigation of title has been completed when it has not is a method of dealing with that difficulty which borders on dishonesty. The submission that unqualified CoTs are given frequently prematurely makes this misconduct all the more serious.”

This was one of many failings on the part of these solicitors and which viewed collectively pointed to a firm who had acted recklessly with the handing of money belonging to a third part to whom the solicitors owed a duty of care.   The other failings included the incomplete submission of requisitions, the submission of the mortgage monies to the seller’s solicitors in the absence of an undertaking to hold the monies to the order of the solicitors, failure to check the replies to requisitions and a total disregard of the completion code.

Rob Hailstone of the BOLD Group which represents a number of conveyancing practices today issued a very helpful note on the lessons to be learned from this decision and which act as a timely reminder to all practitioners to carry out an urgent review of processes.    I have set out these ‘lessons’ below.

More significantly however are the questions this decision leaves unanswered relating to the duty of care owed to a lender in circumstances where a simultaneous exchange and completion take place. 

The questions are as follows:

Is there a breach of our obligation to the lender to submit a COT in circumstances where we have certified that we are satisfied there is a good and marketable tile, but we have yet to exchange contracts?  Or putting it another way, should we only ever submit a COT once exchange has taken place?

If  a COT can be submitted before exchange, is it permissible given the CoA ruling to send mortgage funds over to the sellers lawyers (after making checks on the solicitors and checking carefully replies to requisitions) in readiness for completion providing we have a full and satisfactory undertaking from the sellers solicitors to hold the monies strictly to our order?

If is not then does it follow that simultaneous exchanges and completions on mortgage related transactions should no longer take place?

Here are Rob’s tips (rh@boldgroup.co.uk)

·         Raise your requisitions making sure that all relevant questions have been specifically highlighted and asked

·         Make sure that the replies to requisitions correspond to the correct questions, are specific, detailed and accurate

·         Do not submit your CoT until all title investigations have been completed to your satisfaction

·         Do not hold on to the mortgage advance if completion is delayed, without consent from the lender

·         Make sure that the Completion Code applies and it has been formally agreed to Complete by Post

·         Make sure that you receive all outstanding documentation by post immediately after completion, including any undertaking or form of discharge

·         Take correct and swift action if completion does not take place, outstanding documents are not received and/or vacant possession is not granted

·         In an ideal world (the judges seem to think we work and live in one), do not submit a CoT until exchange has taken place and do not agree a completion date that is less than five working days from exchange. Maybe we should get lenders to stipulate that this has to occur, thereby eliminating the dangerous and stressful practice of simultaneous exchange and completion?