Victoria Kinsella & One Other & One Other

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

The SRA brought allegations against three respondents arising from client monies (unpaid professional disbursements and ATE insurance premiums) being improperly held in the Firm's overdrawn office account between October 2016 and June 2017. The First and Second Respondents (directors/COLP) were found in breach of SAR Rules 6.1 and 14.1, Principles 6,7,8,10 and Outcomes 7.2 and 7.3, on the basis they failed to scrutinise reconciliations even though they had no actual knowledge of the shortfall; each was fined £10,000. An allegation (1.2) against the First Respondent concerning advising holiday-sickness clients to delete social media content was dismissed for insufficient evidence. The Third Respondent (the Firm's COFA, not a solicitor) was found to have failed to ensure compliance and failed to report a material breach in breach of Authorisation Rule 8.5(e) and Principles; a Section 43 Order was imposed. No dishonesty was alleged or found. Total costs of £60,000 were ordered, shared equally (£20,000 each).

Duties found breached:

• Uphold public trust in the profession
• No improper use of client money
• Firm governance, systems and compliance
• Cooperate openly with regulators
• Report serious misconduct of others
• Not misrepresent regulated status

Aggravating factors:

• Misconduct continued over a period of many months
• Client monies were in effect propping up the Firm's overdrawn office account
• For the Third Respondent: actual knowledge of the unpresented cheques issue and failure to act or report, allowing loyalty to the Firm to override regulatory obligations

Mitigating factors:

• No client suffered any actual loss and shortfall was made good (rectified by 4 September 2017)
• Voluntary self-report to the SRA
• Genuine insight and remorse
• Full cooperation with the investigation
• Previously unblemished careers (First and Second Respondents)
• No deliberate conduct or actual knowledge of the shortfall by the First and Second Respondents (strict liability basis)