Disciplinary Record - Sunil Chumber

Decision - Fined

Outcome: Fine

Outcome date: 30 May 2024

Published date: 9 July 2024

Firm details

Firm or organisation at date of publication and at time of matters giving rise to outcome

Name: Coltman Warner Cranston LLP

Address(es): Unit 3 The Innovation Village Cheetah Road COVENTRY CV1 2TL England

Firm ID: 427844

Outcome details

This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

Decision details

Sunil Chumber, who is a solicitor at Coltman Warner Cranston LLP, Unit 3, The Innovation Village, Cheetah Road, Coventry, CV1 2TL, a recognised body (the firm).

Short summary of decision

We have issued Mr Chumber with a financial penalty for breaching Principles 1 and 2 of the SRA Principles 2019. Facts of the misconduct On 28 May 2023 Mr Chumber was involved in a road traffic incident in Birmingham City Centre. He hit a kerb and damaged his vehicle. On 28 June 2023, Mr Chumber pleaded guilty to and was convicted of the offence of failing to provide a specimen of breath for analysis contrary to section 7 to the Road Traffic Act 1988. It was found that Mr Chumber’s actions, in refusing to provide a sample of breath when requested to by the police, was a breach of Principles 1 and 2 of the SRA Principles 2019. Decision on sanction It was decided that a financial penalty was an appropriate and proportionate sanction.

This was because his conduct was serious by reference to the following factors in the SRA Enforcement Strategy:

• Any lesser sanction would not be appropriate.
• To send a signal to those we regulate more widely with the aim of preventing similar behaviour by others.
• Some public sanction is required to uphold public confidence in the delivery of legal services

Aggravating factors included that Mr Chumber’s conduct was reckless. He had direct control over his actions. He had a previous conviction for driving with excess alcohol in 2005. There were also mitigating factors, including Mr Chumber’s self-report to the SRA matter, his guilty plea, and expression of remorse. In view of the above, Mr Chumber’s conduct was placed in conduct band C which has a financial penalty bracket of between 16% and 49% of his gross annual income. His conduct was placed at the lower end of the bracket at C2 (24% of gross annual income). A discount of 25% was applied to the penalty to take account of factors including Mr Chumber’s admissions and co-operation. Mr Chumber was directed to pay a financial penalty of £6,345 and ordered to pay costs of £1,350.