Roland Ivor Cassam & Peter Rhidian Lewis

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

Two principals of Temple Law faced allegations arising from serious Accounts Rules breaches, a large client account shortfall (minimum c.£328,748), missing client files, and misuse of client monies. The First Respondent, Roland Cassam, received £127,000 to redeem clients' C&G mortgage but failed to do so, making repeated untruthful statements to clients, the purchaser's solicitor and the SRA investigator; the Tribunal made an express finding of dishonesty (Twinsectra/Bultitude test) and struck him off, ordering costs of £15,575. The Second Respondent, Peter Lewis, admitted failing to discharge his COLP/COFA duties after abandoning day-to-day involvement without resigning or notifying the SRA; he was fined £3,000 (reduced from £7,600 for means) and ordered to pay £3,000 costs. The Tribunal proceeded in the absence of both respondents.

Duties found breached:

• No conflict between current clients
• Handle inadvertently received material
• No improper use of client money
• Prompt accounting and return of money
• Accounting records, reconciliation and reports
• Diligence and timeliness
• Firm governance, systems and compliance
• Cooperate openly with regulators
• Self-report to the regulator

Aggravating factors:

• Dishonesty of the First Respondent
• Deliberate, calculated and repeated misconduct
• Concealment of misconduct and untruthful statements to IO, clients and other solicitor
• Breach of undertaking to redeem mortgage
• Previous 2010 disciplinary finding involving Accounts Rules breaches (should have learned lessons)
• Significant harm to clients, lenders and Compensation Fund (£143,945.26 paid out, only c.52p in pound recovered)
• Second Respondent: protracted abrogation of COLP/COFA responsibilities over about a year

Mitigating factors:

• Second Respondent made prompt and full admissions and was co-operative
• Second Respondent took no financial benefit after ceasing fee-earning and is repaying firm's debts
• Second Respondent less experienced and did not plan misconduct
• First Respondent admitted the Accounts Rules breaches (though not dishonesty)
• First Respondent's past ill health (2010-12) noted, though not affecting relevant period