Howard Beckett and miners' compensation: a short 🧵
The ST reported in 2016 that Howard Beckett was fined £5,000 by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal in 2009 for misconduct in connection with miners' compensation. Beckett was, at the time, a partner in the Wirral firm of Beckett, Bemrose and Hagan.
Here is Beckett’s version of events as given in an interview to rs21 in May this year:…
Contrary to Beckett's assertion, it is not possible to check his account by going to the SRA's website, because only the 50 most recent regulatory decisions are reported there. Nor is the judgment available from the SDT's website. But we have a copy.
There were 8 allegations in total, labelled (a) to (h). Allegation (a) relates to the failure to report the dishonest employee & allegation (f) relates to conveyancing transactions. The remaining allegations relate to miners’ compensation claims.
At paragraphs 28 and 29, we see that the Law Society, which at the time acted as prosecutor in these proceedings, applied to withdraw allegations (a) and (h) and the tribunal permitted them to be withdrawn.
At paragraph 54: "[Beckett's QC] explained that there had been three major problems involving deductions from claimants’ compensation; deductions paid as success fees to solicitors, those paid to trade unions and, as in the present case, those paid to introducers."
So Beckett was not fined for being too indulgent towards a cashier in her sixties. He was fined - in the words of his own counsel - for problems involving deductions from miners' compensation. All allegations apart from (a) and (f) were proven.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Levins Solicitors

Levins Solicitors Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @LevinsLaw

9 Jun
The government's award of a contract worth >£500k to Public First Ltd to conduct focus groups was unlawful on the ground of apparent bias.
The govt was entitled, in the exceptional circs of a pandemic, to award the contract directly i.e. without notice or competition, but the absence of competition made it all the more important for the govt to use a fair process for selecting Public First.
The govt did not properly consider whether other providers could have done the work, and its failure to do so would cause a fair-minded observer to conclude there was a real risk that the award of the contract to Public First was biased.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!