Anthony Sheil and Partners Solicitor Altrincham

allyhall

Solicitor suspended after 48 years in the industry

A solicitor who specialised in conveyancing, commercial property and planning has been suspended with immediate effect by the SRA.

Anthony Sheil (SRA ID 85292) was admitted as a solicitor in December 1966 and recently practiced at Anthony Sheil and Partners of Station House, Stamford New Road, Altrincham, Cheshire. Additionally, this firm has now been closed by the Solicitor’s Regulation Authority (SRA).

Mr Sheil is suspected to have acted dishonestly and the SRA was satisfied that there was a need to intervene under Schedule 1 of the Solicitors Act 1974.

The regulator also suspected Mr Sheil of failing to comply with section 31 and 32 of the Solicitors Act 1974.

John Owen of Gordons LLP, Forward House, 8 Duke Street, Bradford, has been appointed as the intervening agent for any clients of Mr Sheil.

During his 48-year career Mr Sheil’s areas of practise included commercial property, landlord and tenant law, planning law and residential conveyancing according to the Law Society.

tomtontom

Do you have a friend called oneye14 by any chance?

paddyrg

http://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/085292.article

It does seem to be the case.

tomtontom

paddyrg wrote: »

http://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/085292.article

It does seem to be the case.

Indeed, I just wondered what the OP's interest was. We don't generally get a new thread each time a professional is subject to disciplinary action.

RuthnJasper

tomtontom wrote: »

Do you have a friend called oneye14 by any chance?

I suspect you are right Tom, it may be the opening of 14's other eye...

OP, you need to be very careful about making these sorts of statements in a forum - to which the object of your allegations may not have access and therefore the right of reply.

It may be that he is guilty, but you don't add any explanatory details as to why you've singled this one out for comment on here.

Pollycat

As this is posted on the Praise, Vent & Warnings board I assume it is one of those 3.

Not sure which though.

Surely not 'praise' unless the praise is for the actions of the SRA.

Maybe 'vent' if the OP has been on the wrong end of this solicitor's alleged dishonesty.

Or 'Warning'. But if the guy has already been suspended and his firm closed, who are we being warned against?

A very strange thread.

SnowTiger

RuthnJasper wrote: »

OP, you need to be very careful about making these sorts of statements in a forum - to which the object of your allegations may not have access and therefore the right of reply.

It may be that he is guilty, but you don't add any explanatory details as to why you've singled this one out for comment on here.

It's a report of a decision made by the Solicitors Regulation Authority:

The Panel was satisfied that grounds for intervention existed under Paragraph 1(1)(c) of Schedule 1 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended) as Mr Anthony Sheil had failed to comply with the rules made by virtue of section 31 and 32 of the Solicitors Act 1974.

The Panel was further satisfied that grounds for intervention existed under Paragraph 1 (1) (a) of the Solicitors Act 1974 ( as amended) as there was reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of Mr Sheil.

Tigsteroonie

tomtontom wrote: »

Indeed, I just wondered what the OP's interest was. We don't generally get a new thread each time a professional is subject to disciplinary action.

I don't remember a thread when our solicitors Robert Meaton & Co were closed down by the SRA ... Link: http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/practice/sra-shuts-down-manchester-firm/5042576.fullarticle

RuthnJasper

SnowTiger wrote: »

It's a report of a decision made by the Solicitors Regulation Authority:

Thanks ST. Yes, I realise that - but I wonder why the OP saw fit to re-post that particular one out of all the recent SRA adjudications? Also the adjudication isn't a verbatim transcript of the circumstances and how they came about.

Interesting information for anyone in that area, perhaps.

montgomeryhouse

RuthnJasper wrote: »

Thanks ST. Yes, I realise that - but I wonder why the OP saw fit to re-post that particular one out of all the recent SRA adjudications? Also the adjudication isn't a verbatim transcript of the circumstances and how they came about.

Interesting information for anyone in that area, perhaps.

Just a thought. Although this individual is or was a solicitor it could be that they have other interests (business?) outside the law and there are other reasons for posting this information. It would be helpful to know.

RuthnJasper

montgomeryhouse wrote: »

Just a thought. Although this individual is or was a solicitor it could be that they have other interests (business?) outside the law and there are other reasons for posting this information. It would be helpful to know.

Yes indeed. A specific (non-speculative and appropriate) reason for the mere cut'n'paste of information that is freely and easily available elsewhere on the net would be most helpful.