Millard Decal Spence

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

Two solicitors of Soho Law Solicitors faced allegations of misleading the SRA, practising uncertified, and (for the principal) accounts, insurance and ARP-payment breaches. The Tribunal found all allegations substantiated and made express findings of dishonesty against both Respondents regarding false statements to the SRA (including a false claim that Ms Toussaint was supervising the practice). Citing exceptional circumstances, the Tribunal suspended the First Respondent Spence for 3 years and the Second Respondent for 4 months, with costs of £12,000 apportioned £8,400/£3,600. On appeal in October 2012 the High Court quashed Spence's suspension and struck him off the Roll.

Duties found breached:

• Disclose adverse law to the court
• No improper communication with the court
• Report serious misconduct of others
• Pay instructed practitioners and agents
• Not misrepresent regulated status

Aggravating factors:

• First Respondent instructed on several occasions by the SRA that he could not practise but continued
• First Respondent asked Ms Toussaint to lie/back up his false account to the SRA
• Deliberately misleading and lying to the regulatory body

Mitigating factors:

• Considerable personal and financial pressure at the time (relationship breakdown, cash flow crisis)
• No personal profit; First Respondent ultimately lost his practice
• Clients not placed at risk other than in regulatory matters
• Previous good character and positive references
• Open and frank when giving evidence, accepted wrongdoing
• Second Respondent young, inexperienced, naive and less culpable, following the lead of the First Respondent