Jonathan Ippazio De Vita & Christopher John Platt & Emily Scott

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

In a case concerning Quality Solicitors De Vita Platt, the SDT considered allegations across three Rule statements against three solicitors. The Second Respondent (Platt) was found to have dishonestly raised and signed inflated/false bills, drawn down client S's funding loan without permission, caused client account shortages, misled clients (N), the Legal Ombudsman and the SRA's forensic investigator, instructed the Third Respondent to falsify files, and engaged in teeming and lading. The First Respondent (De Vita) dishonestly falsely certified ID1 forms and lied to the Land Registry, recklessly signed false bills, caused client account shortages and failed to supervise. The Third Respondent (Scott), a trainee, was found to have dishonestly falsified Client L's file on the Second Respondent's instruction and failed to promptly report misconduct. Some allegations (including certain falsification, file whereabouts and one dishonesty allegation against the Second Respondent) were found not proved. All three were struck off the Roll. Total costs of £145,533.96 were assessed; the Third Respondent ordered to pay 1% (£2,077) and the First and Second Respondents the balance jointly and severally.

Duties found breached:

• Integrity
• Uphold public trust in the profession
• Act in the client's best interests
• Non-discriminatory acceptance and cab-rank
• No conflict between current clients
• No improper use of client money
• Cooperate openly with regulators

Aggravating factors:

• Dishonesty found (per SRA v Sharma - harm to public every time a solicitor behaves dishonestly)
• Misconduct deliberate, calculated, repeated and continued over several years
• Took advantage of vulnerable people (probate clients, beneficiaries, executors; and for the Second Respondent the junior Third Respondent)
• Attempts to conceal wrongdoing, often by blaming others
• Respondents knew conduct was in material breach of obligations
• Second Respondent personally instigated much of the misconduct and was aggressive/bullying towards the Third Respondent
• For Third Respondent: dishonesty over four months and failure to report over 18-24 months leaving clients at risk

Mitigating factors:

• No previous disciplinary findings for any respondent
• For Third Respondent: deceived, pressured, bullied and manipulated by the Second Respondent
• For Third Respondent: voluntarily notified the SRA (the only staff member to do so), exposing her own misconduct
• For Third Respondent: genuine insight and early admissions to the factual basis; low level of experience as trainee/paralegal
• Health/medical circumstances raised by First and Second Respondents (not found to be contributory or exceptional)