R G Simkin & Z M Sharif

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

The SDT heard consolidated cases against solicitor Richard Graham Simkin (First Respondent) and his wife Zakia Naseem Sharif (Second Respondent), former Director of Administration at Fulbright and Jaworski International LLP. An adjournment application by the Second Respondent (pending criminal trial) was refused, with the Tribunal holding the hearing in private and embargoing its findings until conclusion of the criminal proceedings. The First Respondent was found to have practised without PII, made false expense claims (dishonest), and received undisclosed private fees and consultancy remuneration (dishonest); allegation 4 (misleading Mr Vogel) was not proved. The Tribunal applied Twinsectra and SRA v Sharma and, finding no exceptional circumstances, struck him off the Roll, ordering costs of £22,000. The Second Respondent was found dishonest in relation to the Tokyo trip expense, false invoices, forging Mr Vogel's signature and misappropriating firm money, plus breaches of confidentiality, unauthorised payments and false CV claims (some allegations not proved). As she was not a solicitor, the Tribunal made a Section 43 order and ordered costs of £12,000. Costs orders were made non-enforceable while restraint/freezing orders were in place. Total costs £34,000 (£22,000 + £12,000).

Duties found breached:

• Proper basis for allegations
• Personal probity and fitness to practise
• Disclose material information to client
• No improper use of client money
• Prompt accounting and return of money
• No baseless or threatened misconduct report

Aggravating factors:

• Abuse of position of trust (First Respondent was Risk and Compliance Partner/MLRO; Second Respondent was Director of Administration)
• Deliberate, planned and repeated conduct over a lengthy period
• Concealed marital relationship enabling approval of each other's false claims
• Multiple instances of dishonesty
• Exposure of clients to risk through lack of PII

Mitigating factors:

• First Respondent's medical condition - stress, anxiety and depression (psychiatric report)
• Claimed work pressures were 'ferocious'
• No clients said to have been financially affected
• First Respondent's admissions and expressions of remorse, not opposing strike off

⚠ figures not found verbatim in the source were dropped: ["unverified_costs_amount=34000"]