Alexander John Marks & Paul Elliott

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

The SDT found First Respondent Alexander John Marks, a solicitor, caused/allowed a client account cash shortage of c.£247,289.62 through improper transfers of costs from client to office account and improper inter-ledger transfers (teeming and lading), and failed to promptly return a c.£178,821 overpayment by Client EY. Dishonesty was expressly found proved against him in respect of all allegations. He was struck off the Roll. Second Respondent Paul Elliott, the unadmitted bookkeeper, was found to have undertaken/assisted the improper transfers and failed to escalate the overpayment, with dishonesty also expressly found proved. He was made subject to a section 43 order and referred to his professional body. Costs were assessed at £25,285.50, split two thirds (£16,857.00) to the First Respondent and one third (£8,428.50) to the Second Respondent. Both proceeded in absence.

Duties found breached:

• No improper communication with the court
• Act in the client's best interests
• Segregate client money
• No improper use of client money
• Prompt accounting and return of money

Aggravating factors:

• Express finding of dishonesty against both respondents
• Misconduct sustained over approximately 9 years and 7 months
• Teeming and lading scheme to conceal client account shortages
• Took advantage of vulnerable people / breach of trust over estates of deceased clients (MRM and NN)
• Raised bills far in excess of estimates without client agreement
• Concealed wrongdoing up to point of suspension; First Respondent paid £40,000 into office account on eve of merger to disguise position
• Passed liabilities onto Successor Firm causing financial and reputational harm
• No insight shown by either respondent

Mitigating factors:

• No previous disciplinary findings against either respondent
• First Respondent admitted all allegations save dishonesty (given small, late credit)
• First Respondent relied on medical condition affecting professional judgment (rejected as excuse for sophisticated scheme)