Rose Elizabeth Egarr & Andrew Walsh

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

Arthur Smiths Solicitors of Wigan was intervened into after a forensic investigation found that the owner/manager Rose Egarr had paid a client (MM), who had no funds with the firm, between roughly £80,000 and £100,000 from client account, creating a minimum shortfall of £69,990, while also funding the firm's payroll and her own account from improperly transferred client monies. The Tribunal found all allegations against her proved, including two express findings of dishonesty (misuse of client funds and making false statements to the investigating officer), plus accounts-rules breaches, breach of PC conditions, failure to maintain a COLP/COFA, unauthorised sole practice and failure to co-operate. She did not attend and was struck off, with £22,760 costs. The firm's accounts manager/COFA, Andrew Walsh (an un-admitted clerk already subject to a section 43 order), admitted carrying out the transfers, failing to keep proper records and failing to report; no dishonesty was alleged against him. He was fined £8,000 (Level 3) and ordered to pay £5,690 costs.

Duties found breached:

• Not mislead third parties or opponents
• Act only on proper, lawful instructions
• Proper termination and return of instructions
• Non-discriminatory acceptance and cab-rank
• No improper use of client money
• Accounting records, reconciliation and reports
• Account for interest on client money
• Hold a current practising certificate

Aggravating factors:

• Dishonesty alleged and proved against First Respondent
• Misconduct deliberate and continued over a period of time
• First Respondent attempted to conceal wrongdoing by misleading the SRA
• First Respondent an experienced solicitor (admitted 1984) with total control of the firm
• Substantial harm to client account and reputation of profession
• Second Respondent persisted in conduct despite being aware client money was misused
• Second Respondent had prior section 43 order and prior awareness of his lack of knowledge of accounts rules

Mitigating factors:

• First Respondent had a previously unblemished career
• First Respondent possibly deceived by the client MM (a suspected fraudster)
• First Respondent made some admissions to the investigating officer
• Second Respondent made early and frank admissions and cooperated
• Second Respondent did not benefit personally beyond wages
• Second Respondent was inexperienced, untrained and inadequately supervised in the COFA role
• Second Respondent worked in a stressful, pressured environment and had health problems