John F Fielding and Stanley M J Kerruish

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

Fielding and Kerruish, partners in Fielding & Co., Manchester, faced allegations following an OSS intervention. Kerruish admitted 'over-billing' clients to support the failing practice, raising false bills and transferring funds from client to office account, then reversing them, causing a minimum cash shortage of £297,118.26. The Tribunal found all allegations substantiated against both. The case against Fielding was based on his strict liability as a partner who failed to supervise (not actual knowledge); his prolonged serious ill health was accepted in mitigation. The Tribunal did not make an express finding of dishonesty against either respondent, instead describing the conduct as improper over-billing and 'widespread looting of clients' funds.' Fielding was suspended for two years; Kerruish, who bore responsibility for the over-billing, was struck off.

Duties found breached:

• No improper use of client money
• Prompt accounting and return of money
• Accounting records, reconciliation and reports
• No improper solicitation or touting

Aggravating factors:

• Widespread looting of clients' funds for the benefit of the practice
• Second Respondent operated the over-billing system and accepted full responsibility to the investigator
• Second Respondent later attempted to share responsibility via unsubstantiated allegations
• Damage to the reputation of the profession
• Minimum cash shortage of £297,118.26 unremedied at date of report

Mitigating factors:

• First Respondent suffered prolonged and serious ill health at the relevant time
• Not a case of deliberately turning a blind eye
• First Respondent reported the matter to the OSS and requested intervention to safeguard clients
• First Respondent reported the matter to police and took steps (fresh bank accounts, freezing order) against the Second Respondent
• First Respondent had unblemished disciplinary record over 40 years
• First Respondent had no intention of returning to practice
• First Respondent lost retirement income and was in an IVA