Date

17 March 2021

Charges

Five charges of misconduct against Michael Glover were referred to the Disciplinary Tribunal as follows:

Charge 1

Michael Glover failed to behave with honesty and/or integrity.
Contrary to Principle 3, Outcomes 3.2 and 3.5 of the CILEx Code of Conduct 2015

Charge 2

Michael Glover failed to maintain high standards of professional and personal conduct and justify public trust in himself, his profession, and the provision of legal services. He engaged in conduct that could undermine or affect adversely the confidence and trust placed in him and his profession by his client, employer, professional colleagues, the public and others.
Contrary to Principle 2, Outcome 2.2 of the CILEx Code of Conduct 2015

The particulars are that between 21 March 2018 and 18 September 2018, Mr Glover pursued a course of dishonest and misleading conduct in his correspondence with a beneficiary’s solicitor (AW) following their request for a Larke v Nugus statement.

Mr Glover, having in 2017 prepared a will for B in which he is named as executor, failed to comply fully with the requirements of the guidance established  in the case of Larke v Nugus [2000] when he knew or ought to have known there were serious concerns raised by a beneficiary as to the validity of the will.

In the course of his correspondence with AW, Mr Glover repeatedly held himself out as a solicitor; informed them that he had instructed his own solicitor to respond to their enquiries, whereas he later informed CILEx Regulation that he had not done so, and in response to their specific enquiry about the identity documents obtained from B, he said the identification received were her driving licence and a bank statement, whereas these identification documents had not been received from B for this purpose.

Charge 3

Michael Glover failed to behave with honesty and/or integrity.
Contrary to Principle 3, Outcomes 3.1 and 3.2 of the CILEx Code of Conduct  2015

Charge 4

Michael Glover failed to maintain high standards of professional and personal conduct and justify public trust in himself, his profession, and the provision of legal services. He engaged in conduct that could undermine or affect adversely the confidence and trust placed in him and his profession by his client, employer, professional colleagues, the public and others.
Contrary to Principle 2, Outcome 2.2 of the CILEx Code of Conduct 2015

The particulars are that between 21 July 2019 and 4 December 2020, Mr Glover misled or attempted to mislead CILEx Regulation during the course of its investigation into his alleged misconduct, including his involvement in the preparation of B’s will in October 2017.

Mr Glover informed CILEx Regulation that he did not know B had made a  previous will, whereas he had informed AW during April and May 2018 that her previous will had been discussed with her; that it had been made in 2010; that it was at her friend’s house and that he had explained to her what would happen to the previous will.

Mr Glover informed CILEx Regulation that he had never seen B’s previous will, whereas he had acknowledged receipt of a copy of it in a letter to AW on 10 August 2018. He also informed CILEx Regulation   that AW had accepted that B’s new will was properly signed by her, whereas there was no such acceptance by AW.

Mr Glover informed CILEx Regulation that his limited company, MJG Legal Services, does not trade with the public in any capacity and is merely a company through which he receives his income as a locum legal executive, whereas his correspondence with AW regarding the will of B  was on MJG headed notepaper and worded in such a way as to suggest that his firm was acting in the matter.

Charge 5

Michael Glover failed to act effectively and in accordance with proper governance  and sound financial and risk management principles.
Contrary to Principle 8, Outcomes 8.1 and 8.6 of the CILEx Code of Conduct 2015

The particulars are that between 30 July 2017 and 30 October 2020, Mr Glover failed to maintain proper standards of work or keep accurate or contemporaneous records of client matters.

While working for his employer (MG) in August 2017, Mr Glover failed either to make or keep attendance notes of face to face meetings which he states took place at his client, B home, following an instruction from a third party to sell an industrial unit . There are no records at MG showing they had knowledge of the visits or had given consent to Mr Glover to undertake them. The client’s identity check was inadequate, in that the only document obtained was an uncertified copy of a driving licence.

Outcome

The Disciplinary found five charges, including two findings of dishonesty, against Michael Glover proved on the balance of probabilities.

Sanction – Exclusion – fixed period

In accordance with Rule 30(5)(iv) of the CILEx Regulation Enforcement Rules, the Tribunal ordered an immediate exclusion from membership of CILEx with a direction that no application for readmission shall be entertained for a minimum of 12 months from the date of the Tribunal’s decision.