LCRO 113/2020 SM v YL (7 May 2021) [pdf, 141 KB]
...made the following findings against Mr YL: (a) He failed to act competently and in a timely manner consistent with the terms of his retainer and the duty to take reasonable care. (b) He failed to follow Mr SM’s instructions. (c) He failed to protect and promote Mr SM’s interests. 1 Although Mr YL’ clients were the two trustees of the T Trust, Mr SM was authorised to deal directly with Mr YL and instruct him on behalf of both trustees. For ease of reference in this decision...