9856-2007 - T A Izzet & Another

Findings — machine-extracted (anthropic-batch:claude-opus-4-8); verify against the decision

Two partners at Swift Property Solicitors faced seven allegations concerning accounts rules breaches, failure to notify lenders of purchase incentives/discounts on conveyancing matters, failure to act in a client's best interests (undischarged mortgage), failure with integrity, failure to comply with undertakings, and failure to cooperate with the regulator. All allegations were admitted. No dishonesty was alleged or found, but the Tribunal found the First Respondent lacked the required integrity, probity and trustworthiness, particularly regarding an undertaking on the sale of his own property. Given a poor regulatory history including a prior Tribunal fine and multiple reprimands, the First Respondent was struck off and the less culpable Second Respondent suspended for three years (with time allowed to dispose of the practice). Costs of £11,400.30 ordered jointly and severally.

Duties found breached:

• No improper communication with the court
• Integrity
• Uphold public trust in the profession
• Act in the client's best interests
• No conflict between current clients
• Report serious misconduct of others
• Honour professional undertakings

Aggravating factors:

• Undertaking related to First Respondent's own property and was given by him personally
• Even SRA involvement did not prompt compliance with the undertaking
• Previous appearance before the Tribunal on 6 July 2006 with similar accounts rules breaches - failure to take heed
• Multiple prior reprimands for failure to comply with undertakings and late filing of Accountant's Report
• Serial disregard of regulatory matters; consistent pattern of failing to honour undertakings
• Seven files open with the Authority investigating various complaints
• Seven-month delay in providing indemnity policy with no explanation

Mitigating factors:

• No dishonesty alleged or found
• Admitted all allegations
• Character references provided
• Cash shortage substantially caused by bank employee fraud (forged signature), which Respondents reported themselves and rectified with £98,000 of their own money
• Paid client RO £650 compensation
• Second Respondent less culpable - engaged with process and attempted to resolve matters
• Sub prime market collapse reduced workload; accounts problems now resolved