Steven Ronald Shepherd

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

The case was remitted by the High Court (Laing J) for sanction to be reconsidered after the original Tribunal (Sept 2014) had struck the Respondent off and ordered costs of £43,970.36; the High Court found that division had gone too far in its findings. The remitted Tribunal (April 2016) considered sanction afresh on the basis of seven proven allegations (breaches of the Solicitors Accounts Rules, lack of integrity in two conveyancing transactions, money laundering due diligence failures, and use of client account without an underlying legal transaction). No dishonesty was alleged or found - only a lack of integrity. Given the Respondent's insight, medical mitigation and testimonials, the Tribunal concluded that striking off was disproportionate and instead imposed a one-year suspension back-dated to 9 September 2014 (so effectively already served), together with indefinite practising conditions and a two-year bar on holding client money. No order for costs was made as the further hearing arose from the earlier Tribunal's error rather than any fault of the Respondent.

Duties found breached:

• Diligence and timeliness
• No conflict between current clients
• No improper use of client money
• Prompt accounting and return of money

Aggravating factors:

• Misconduct was repeated, not a single incident
• Previous appearance before the Tribunal (case 10453/2010), in which she was fined £10,000
• Experienced solicitor at the time of the misconduct
• Conduct was potentially misleading to third parties

Mitigating factors:

• Medical evidence of post-traumatic stress disorder and depression following a 2008 car-jacking, affecting concentration during the relevant period
• Genuine insight and remorse shown; undertook training in law firm management and accounts
• No improper motive; misconduct not planned and no permanent loss caused
• Strong body of testimonials from clients, peers and a barrister
• Lengthy delay in proceedings, none of which was the Respondent's fault
• Misconduct confined to a particular period in 2009/10 with no concerns before or after
• De facto suspension already served since September 2014