SOLICITORS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF THE SOLICITORS ACT 1974 Case No, 11621-2017 BETWEEN: SOLICITORS REGULATION AUTHORITY Applicant and STEFANO ENRICO MARIO LUCATELLO, Respondent Before: Ms A. E, Banks (in the chair) Mr J. Evans Dr 8. Bown Date of Hearing: 23 May 2017 Appearances The parties were not required to attend as the matter was dealt with on the papers. Andrew Bullock, counsel of Solicitors Regulation Authority, The Cube, 199 Wharfside Street, Birmingham, B1 1RN, for the Applicant was at the Tribunal on another matter and ‘was asked to assist the Tribunal with some clarification, JUDGMENTAllegations 1. Lal ‘The allegation made by the Applicant against the Respondent in a Rule 5(2) Statement dated 27 February 2017 was that:~ Between 23 July 2014 and 15 July 2015 he failed to display proper professional respect and courtesy to Ms VG, a litigant in person, when corresponding with her upon behalf of his client Mr AV. He thereby breached any or all of: 1.1.1, Principle 4 SRA Principles 2011; 1.1.2, Principle 5 of the SRA Principles 2011; and 1.1.3. Principle 6 SRA Principles 2011 Documents Application and Rule 5 Statement dated 27 February 2017 Statement of Agreed Facts and Proposed Penalty dated 10 May 2017 Factual Background 2. The Respondent was born in May 1961 and admitted to the Roll of Solicitors in February 1988. At the date of the hearing, the Respondent's name remained on the Roll and he held a current practising certificate free from conditions. Agreed Facts 3. From 6 January 2012 onwards the Respondent practised as a member of Kobalt Law LLP from offices in London SW10. In that capacity he was retained by Mr AV, an Italian citizen, in matrimonial proceedings against his former wife, Ms VG. The proceedings concerned arrangements for contact by Mr AV with L, a child born to the marriage, in Italy and the payment of maintenance by Mr AV to Ms VG for the benefit of L. In the period between 31 March 2014 and 15 July 2015 the Respondent engaged in correspondence with Ms VG, in the course of which he made the following statements to her: In an email timed at 10.26 on 23 July 2014 (sent in response to an email from Ms VG enquiring whether he was acting for Mr AV on a pro bono basis) the Respondent stated: “Please do not waste my time with irrelevance. What my firm does for clients is my business not yours ... We are now considering making an application to the attorney generai to make you a vexatious litigant”.In an email timed at 12.03 on 23 July 2014 (sent in a response to an email from Ms VG to Mr AV pointing out that he had failed to comply with orders concerning the payment of costs and child maintenance and enquiring when payment would be made) the Respondent “...You have had too much leeway exercised in your favourite (sic) by judges in the past and it is now time you really learned the rules on etiquette and what you do and when you say to members of the legal profession including me and judges...” In an email timed at 12.47 on 23 July 2014 the Respondent stated: “As I said before, in view of the fact that you ate quote (sic) clearly unqualified to conduct your own legal and other related affairs, 1 would suggest you make provision to work longer hours, Or take a second job ‘You quite clearly have money for an au pair and you quite clearly lied about the Air France scenario The truth is that you made yourself voluntarily redundant temporarily for your own benefit and motives Tam also led to believe that you also continue to receive benefits from. (sic) The state that you are not entitled to.” In an email timed at 19.43 on 23 July 2014 (sent in response to an email from Ms VG in which she complained that Mr AV was using litigation as a form of harassment and that the Respondent himself was bullying her) the Respondent stated: “Do not write toe (sic) unless you have anything to say that will assist {L] to see her father. ‘The matter is closed You seem to think that I have nothing better to do but argue irrelevant issues with you... Of course you will have forgotten your own distasteful outbursts before DJ Bowman where you argued with her in court like a fisherwoman and your argument with HHJ Moor where you shouted at him saying what would he do if you did not follow his order, ‘put me in jail’ or similar words and his Honour replied by saying that he would do whatever was necessary to have his, orders complied with Of course you will have forgotten this! You seem to think that everyone who represents another party is a liar! Thave told you before not to judge people by your own standards...T have expressed to your (sic) earlier today that you should stop playing at being lawyer and take a correctly qualified legal representative into court Dear [Ms VG] I do not need to show you in a bad light as you do this admirably without any assistance from me”. 9. In an email timed at 08.49 on 10 October 2014 (sent following an email from Ms VG protesting that Mr AV was not attempting to agree the flight by which L should travel to Italy for the purposes of contact, as he had been ordered to do) the Respondent “All you try to do is create problems for your ex-husband and so indirectly your daughter Unless you have something constructive to say do not contact me and moreover please respond to my questions as and when I send them to you Do not think that I will not have you arrested ‘Your behaviour and conduct throughout are a disgrace.” 10. In an email timed at 19.29 on 16 October 2014 (written following a hearing in the County Court and the service of an order by email) the Respondent stated: “It is apparent that you like to play games ...1 will send another time the bundle. Please ask someone to help you open it if, as you say you cannot open it. I do not believe you", 11, In an email timed at 20.29 on 16 December 2014 (following correspondence concerning an application made by Ms VG within in the proceedings and the service of documents ahead of the return date) the Respondent stated: “Your behaviour is incorrigible and it has been irreprehensible as has the latest application and ties served by you and your Italian lawyer in the Italian court You have been served in Italy with counter proceedings. Unfortunately for you your games and lies have been discovered. Place the child on the plane on the due date and do not waste my time.” 12, Inalletter sent on 22 December 2014 the Respondent said: “You appear to be becoming more and more unstable in your behaviour and the father will consider making an application for the child to be taken from you, if you continue in the manner”.13. 14, 15 16. 17. In an email timed at 10.46 on 4 May 2015 (sent in furtherance of a chain of emails concerning the failure of Ms VG to escort L on a flight to Italy and the continued failure of Mr, AV to pay child maintenance) the Respondent stated: “Please do not waste my time. I have told you before, Please answer the questions and don’t try to be clever. You fail miserably.” In an email timed at 20,11 on 14 July 2015 (in response to an email enquiring when Mr AV was proposing to pay child maintenance) the Respondent said: “Thanks for your latest long and repetitive email. I don’t feel inclined to reply to your repetitive rants or waste my time getting involved in responding to your defamatory comments”. In an email timed at 07.53 on 15 July 2015 (sent in response to a complaint about the terms of the earlier email timed at 20.11 on 14 July 2015) the Respondent stated: ,. Your long rants do not merit a reply ‘You should take a full time job and not depend on the state for assistance. ‘We will report the matter of you working and being in receipt of state benefits as this cannot be correct or allowed to continue”. In an email timed at 09.24 on 15 July 2015 (sent in response to an email from Ms VG pointing out that the Respondent was under a duty to contact his client and take instructions upon his proposals for discharging the arrears of child maintenance which had accrued) the Respondent stated: “,.Lalso note you have committed perjury to the court by saying that you are on benefits and intimated that you have no job This of course is incorrect and a wilful omission, as you are still employed by air france (sic) and receive a salary”. In an email timed at 09.55 on 15 July 2015 (sent in response to an email complaining about the Respondent’s conduct towards Ms VG and the Courts) the Respondent stated: If you do not want my replies to your inane and abusive emails I suggest you cease immediately Your emails all suggest that I write to you without any reason only respond to your abusive defamatory comments.T do not stalk or abuse you. I tell you the truth as I do in court, but only when you open dialogue with me ‘You blatantly lie and try to discredit me and my client The best thing is for you to issue an application for the matter to be brought before the high court judge who made the order judge (sic) Moore He was the only one who stood up to your rude abusive and contemptuous words and phrases Also if you wish to change the terms of the order then you should apply to the court, when we can attend and show the court how contemptuous you have been for no other reason but your evil wish to use [L] as a pawn in a game of chess.” 18, On 2 September 2015, a Regulatory Supervisor in the employment of the SRA wrote to the Respondent asking him to comment on the allegation that he had made comments to Ms VG which were offensive and threatening. 19, On 14 September 2015, the Respondent replied to that letter. In that response he said that: “,.,These comments were not just made in isolation, but were the result of substantial action being required to be taken against a person, who has, taken advantage of her position, as unrepresented person, by being given advice by Judges, in clear breach of Judges rules, flouting the procedures and rules, standing up and shouting at me and Judges in Court, telling judges that she would not do what they had ordered her to do, even upon pain of imprisonment, by a County Court and a High Court Judge.’ He went on to explain that ‘All the comments I have made in writing and addressed to [Ms VG} throughout this case, are in my opinion, and those of others, reasonable, fair, polite, but firm, having regard to the extensive history of this case generally, having regard to [Ms VG’s] repeated refusals to comply with various Judges’ contact orders, as evidenced here, in my submissions and her continuous attempts to thwart all contact between father and daughter, coupled with her wild allegations and accusations, calling me a “bully”, a “Stalker” and other such adjectives, which clearly show the lady to be unbalanced.” 20. He gave an explanation as to why each of the extracts from the correspondence quoted by the Supervisor was justified and argued that, in the circumstances, he had not22. 23. “.,,acted in a manner, which can be interpreted as being “offensive and threatening”...” and had ¢,..at all times throughout this matter, maintained a professional attitude, required of my profession, whilst at the same time, not being taken advantage of by my opponent. I have as an officer of the Court, highlighted to the Courts, at all times, what my opponent's agenda was and what she was striving to achieve, in direct contravention of Court Orders...” ion for Proceedings to be resolved by way of Agreed Outcome ‘The parties invited the Tribunal to deal with the Allegations against the Respondent in accordance with the Statement of Agreed Facts and Proposed Penalty annexed to this Judgment. The Tribunal required further information in respect of the Respondent's admissions and the assertion that the harm caused by his misconduct was limited. The Statement of Agreed Facts and Proposed Penalty document stated that the Respondent had made early and frank admissions to the allegations made against him at an carly stage in these proceedings. The Tribunal wished to explore this area given the contents of the September 2015 response as set out at paragraphs 19 and 20 above. Mr Bullock informed the Tribunal that the Respondent had received professional advice at the commencement of these proceedings and had then fully admitted the allegation against him. In terms of the harm caused by the misconduct this was set out in paragraph 8 of the Statement of Agreed Facts and Proposed Penalty. Mr Bullock submitted to the Tribunal that there was no evidence that the Respondent's client was prejudiced by his conduct. This was a factor in stating that the harm caused by the Respondent's misconduct was limited. There was also no evidence that the conduct had been prejudicial to Ms VG. When read in full it was clear from the correspondence that what Ms VG had said was also inappropriate. Findings of Fact and Law 24. 25. The Applicant was required to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt. The Tribunal had due regard to the Respondent’s right to a fair trial and to respect for his private and family life under Articles 6 and 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The Tribunal considered all of the material before it. The Tribunal accepted the facts as agreed between the parties, The Tribunal was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the allegation, which had been admitted, was proved. Previous Disciplinary Matters 26. There were no previous matters.Mitigation 27. The Respondent had admitted the allegation against him. In the Statement of Agreed Facts and Proposed Penalty there was no specific mitigation offered. However, the Tribunal took into account the factors set out at paragraph 10 of that document which ‘were said to mitigate the seriousness of the Respondent's misconduct. Sanction 28. The Tribunal referred to its Guidance Note on Sanctions (5"" Edition- December 2016) when considering sanction. Whilst sanction was a matter for the Tribunal, the Tribunal had read the Statement of Agreed Facts and Proposed Penalty document including the section headed “Explanation as to why such an order would be in accordance with the Tribunal’s sanctions guidance”. 29. Mr Bullock submitted that cases of inappropriate correspondence rarely came before the Tribunal. He was aware of three similar cases that had come before the Tribunal in recent years, Having considered those cases and their contents in his view a fine was the appropriate sanction, On the Applicant’s assessment of this case its view of the misconduct was that it fell into the moderately serious category for which the indicative fine band was £2,001 to £7,500. The proposed fine of £5,000 was, in Mr Bullock’s submission, consistent with the fines that had been imposed in the other cases, two of which had been assessed as more serious and one less so. 30. The Tribunal viewed the Respondent's correspondence as completely unacceptable. He had been corresponding with a litigant in person and it had been his responsibility to maintain his professionalism regardless of what that person may have done. The Respondent’s conduct was unprofessional and had continued for a period of over a year. The Respondent had had a long and previously unblemished career. 31. ‘The Tribunal, having carefully considered the proposal, determined that the terms were proportionate and appropriate. In the circumstances the Tribunal was satisfied that it was reasonable to make an order on the basis of the Statement of Agreed Facts and Proposed Penalty submitted by the parties, namely a fine in the sum of £5,000. Costs 32, The Statement of Agreed Facts and Proposed Penalty proposed that the Respondent would pay costs to the SRA of £2,500. As the parties had agreed this figure the Tribunal was content to order that the Respondent pay the Applicant's costs agreed in the sum of £2,500, Statement of Full Order 33. The Tribunal Ordered that the Respondent, STEFANO ENRICO MARIO LUCATELLO, solicitor, do pay a fine of £5,000.00, such penalty to be forfeit to Her Majesty the Queen, and it further Ordered that he do pay the costs of and incidental to this application and enquiry agreed in the sum of £2,500.00Dated this 26” day of May 2017 On behalf of the Tribunal at AE. Banks Chairman Judgment filed with the Law Society on 30 MAY 2017