Lucia Shingirai Benyu & Ronnie Benyu

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

Lucia Benyu, a sole practitioner at Peters & Co, took £70,000 in 'gifts' and £170,000 in undocumented loans from an elderly, vulnerable client (Mr Frederick Campbell) formerly under the Court of Protection, and misused funds of two other incapacitated clients to support her struggling firm, creating false and misleading documents and a fictitious client ledger credit to conceal the resulting cash shortage. The Tribunal found all allegations proved, including express findings of dishonesty under the Twinsectra test. She was struck off the Roll (the Tribunal noting strike off would have been appropriate even without dishonesty) and ordered to pay costs of £48,000, not enforceable without permission but with leave for a charging order. Her appeal to the High Court against the dishonesty findings was dismissed. The Second Respondent, her husband/practice manager, admitted the allegation and was made subject to a section 43 order and ordered to pay £4,507.38 in costs.

Duties found breached:

• No improper communication with the court
• Honesty
• Not mislead third parties or opponents
• Costs and fee transparency to client
• No conflict between current clients
• Handle inadvertently received material
• No improper use of client money
• Accounting records, reconciliation and reports
• Firm governance, systems and compliance

Aggravating factors:

• Ruthless exploitation of an obviously vulnerable, elderly (84-85 year old) client formerly under the Court of Protection
• Dishonest misappropriation/use of client funds (gifts of £70,000 and loans of £170,000) to prop up a failing firm
• Misuse of funds of two further vulnerable clients lacking mental capacity (Mr W £30,556.72 and the estate of Mr O £154,685.49)
• Creation of false documents and intentionally misleading letters to the client, his executors and the SRA
• Failure to disclose extent of loans to client and executors; failing to ensure independent legal advice
• Evasive and not believable evidence given on oath

Mitigating factors:

• No previous disciplinary findings
• Made a self-report to the SRA
• Cooperated with the SRA investigation
• Repaid/replaced the client account shortage of her own volition
• Complied with conditions imposed on her practice; no repetition
• Positive character testimonials
• Personal/marital stress said to have clouded her judgement