A FORMER York solicitor who was accused of charging an 'unconscionable' £750 an hour - and charged a fee to attend a client's funeral - has been struck off.

Philip Crowe, 79, who used to practise in Boroughbridge Road before retiring about three years ago, also took a loan of £121,950 out of a client's account to pay off a personal loan, a solicitors disciplinary tribunal was told.

The tribunal, involving the Solicitors Regulation Authority, decided he should be struck off the roll of solicitors and ordered to pay £30,000 costs, subject to the tribunal's permission.

The hearing was told that Mr Crowe was instructed to prepare a will by a Mr HHL, which was executed in 2000 and which appointed Mr Crowe and another man as the man's executors and trustees. The will made charitable gifts of £3,000 each to 11 charities, with the residue to be held on trust by the trustees. Mr HHL died in 2009.

An independent costs lawyer examined the level of fees charged by Mr Crowe on matters including the administration of the estate and of the trust, which came to £71,646.

The lawyer concluded that in his opinion, Mr Crowe had overcharged by £51,136, with an effective hourly rate of £750 an hour, which was 'unconscionable and dwarfs the rate that even the senior partner of a City firm could conceivably charge on the most complex of matters.' In interview, Mr Crowe denied he had inflated his costs or was dishonest, saying the charges appeared high but were justified, and Mr HHL had instructed he should be very well paid for dealing with matters.

The tribunal concluded he 'acted without integrity 'in choosing to inflate his costs, and taken unfair advantage of the client.

The tribunal heard a loan of £121,950 was taken from the trust and utilised to pay off a personal loan, secured by a charge on the firm's business premises. The trustees said the capital would be repaid with the trust receiving an income above the bank rate for charitable use. Mr Crowe denied any dishonesty, saying he had 'fought off the desires' of a 'very determined old man' to give everything to him and the other trustee.

Mr Crowe said the problems had arisen because he was 'incompetent with paperwork.'

He said he did not see there was anything wrong in charging for attending Mr HHL's funeral, having worked on the matter for days, including liaising with funeral directors and the cemetery concerning the location of Mr HHL's parents' graves.

The tribunal concluded the withdrawal of the £121,950 was in breach of accounts rules, and Mr Crowe allowed his own interests to take precedence over the trust.

Mr Crowe told The Press he had continued in practice longer than he should have done, and the problems stemmed from poor paperwork and not dishonesty. "My only thought was to benefit the trust - I never gave a thought to there being anything wrong with it."