Stephen Anthony Hogan

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

The Respondent, a solicitor admitted in 1997, was found to have practised as a solicitor without authorisation, without a practising certificate, and to have carried out reserved legal activities while trading as 'Divorce Assistant', an unauthorised and unregulated entity, between May 2014 and April 2018. He used his Setfords consultant email address to mislead clients into thinking they were represented by Setfords, took fees totalling over £60,000 into his personal bank account, misled the court by describing himself as a solicitor on court forms, failed to maintain PII, breached the Accounts Rules, and provided poor service. He admitted all allegations except dishonesty and disputed that Client D was a Divorce Assistant client. The Tribunal found his conduct dishonest under the Ivey test, rejecting his explanation of muddled/messy working. The Respondent did not attend the hearing. The Tribunal found him highly culpable, motivated by personal financial gain, and ordered him struck off the Roll and to pay costs of £44,025.00 (with the question of enforcement to be subject to leave).

Duties found breached:

• Not mislead the court
• No taking unfair advantage
• Act only on proper, lawful instructions
• Complaints procedure and handling
• Accounting records, reconciliation and reports
• Professional indemnity insurance
• Hold a current practising certificate
• Not misrepresent regulated status

Aggravating factors:

• Proven dishonesty
• Deliberate, calculated and repeated misconduct over a sustained period
• Motivation of personal financial gain - diverted Setfords leads to avoid sharing fees
• Created a vehicle specifically intended to avoid compliance, regulation and insurance
• Continued to trade after becoming aware of the SRA investigation
• Breached the trust placed in him by clients
• Failed to deal with client complaints properly or at all
• Caused foreseeable harm to clients and the reputation of the profession

Mitigating factors:

• Admissions to underlying allegations demonstrated some insight
• No previous disciplinary matters
• No other investigations into his conduct
• Expressed wish to come off the roll