Andrew Stevenson & Janet Stevenson

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

Both Respondents, husband-and-wife partners at Prime & Co, admitted multiple long-running breaches of the Solicitors Accounts Rules including improper retention of client money (~£121,270 in dormant balances), failure to notify clients, failure to obtain accountant's reports for some seven years, and failure to report breaches and financial difficulties to the SRA. The First Respondent (COLP/COFA) admitted lack of integrity and manifest incompetence; the Second Respondent admitted manifest incompetence. No dishonesty was found. The Tribunal found the First Respondent more culpable and suspended him for 18 months, and the Second Respondent for 6 months. Although costs of £23,965.20 were sought (and would have been apportioned two-thirds/one-third), the Tribunal made no order as to costs because neither Respondent could realistically pay within a reasonable time, per Barnes v SRA.

Duties found breached:

• Accounting records, reconciliation and reports
• Integrity
• No improper communication with the court
• No improper use of client money
• Not mislead the court
• Prompt accounting and return of money
• Self-report to the regulator

Aggravating factors:

• Misconduct continued over a long period of time
• Conduct was, to an extent, deliberate, calculated and repeated
• First Respondent made a deliberate decision not to obtain accountant's reports (element of planning)
• Respondents knew or ought to have known they were in material breach
• First Respondent had a previous Tribunal finding (2006), though little weight attached
• First Respondent sought to influence the Second Respondent

Mitigating factors:

• Genuine remorse and insight
• Full, open and frank admissions at an early stage
• Took full responsibility
• In process of making good the breaches and winding down the Firm in an orderly manner
• No evidence of loss to individual clients or claims on the Compensation Fund (harm reputational only)
• First Respondent's health issues and long-running HMRC dispute
• Second Respondent had reduced culpability, no lack of integrity, and no previous findings