D E Powell// D J Corlis/Another

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

Three solicitors at Keepers Legal LLP faced numerous allegations including accounts rules breaches, a cash shortage of c.£42,000, money laundering due diligence failures, and conveyancing transactions bearing the hallmarks of property fraud (sub-sales with undisclosed price uplifts to lenders). The Applicant expressly did not allege dishonesty. The First Respondent (senior partner, 95% equity) was struck off given the seriousness and range of proven allegations plus a prior finding. The Second Respondent, with an unblemished 40-year career and found to be truthful and largely excluded from the firm's wrongdoing, was suspended for 2 years (a lenient outcome). The Third Respondent, on his fourth appearance for similar conduct, was struck off. Costs of £29,000 were apportioned 60/20/20.

Duties found breached:

• Proper basis for allegations
• No improper communication with the court
• No taking unfair advantage
• Act in the client's best interests
• Disclose material information to client
• No own-interest conflict
• No improper use of client money
• Accounting records, reconciliation and reports
• Diligence and timeliness
• Professional indemnity insurance
• Hold a current practising certificate
• Good faith and courtesy to colleagues
• No improper solicitation or touting

Aggravating factors:

• First Respondent had previous disciplinary finding (2008 fine £2,000)
• Third Respondent had three previous disciplinary appearances including suspensions; this was his fourth appearance for similar matters
• First Respondent was prime mover and senior partner with 95% equity
• Range and number of serious property-fraud-hallmark transactions

Mitigating factors:

• Second Respondent had unblemished 40-year record and no prior appearances
• Second Respondent found to be reliable and truthful witness
• Second Respondent was used by others and excluded from much of the firm's activity
• Second Respondent expressed remorse and shame; did not intend to practise again
• Tribunal found failures to remedy shortfall were not wilful