§ discipline
‹ Browse decisions

K Sritharan and Another

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
BodySolicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT)
Professionsolicitor
Case number9207/2005
Date01/01/2005
OutcomeStrike off, Suspend - Fixed Period

Allegation / charges

Client Money, Failures, Solicitors' Accounts Rules, Others

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

SanctionStrike Off
Suspension3 months
Dishonesty foundYes

Two solicitors at M K Sri & Co faced allegations following a Law Society intervention. Sole principal Kanapathipillai Sritharan admitted most Solicitors Accounts Rules breaches (failing to keep proper books, improper drawings, round sum transfers, using client funds for his own purposes, and deceitful conduct towards mortgagee GMAC). The Tribunal found a client account shortage of around £1.5 million arising from regular round sum transfers used to run the firm, and made an express finding of dishonesty under the Twinsectra test. He was struck off and ordered to pay all the Applicant's costs (subject to assessment). The Second Respondent, a salaried partner with no dishonesty finding, was found careless and imprudent in authorising round sum transfers and was suspended for 3 months.

Duties found breached:

Aggravating factors:

  • Round sum transfers made frequently and in large amounts over a long period (since at least August 2001)
  • Client account became overdrawn on two occasions, meaning every client's funds were misapplied
  • Shortage of approximately £1.5 million identified by the FIO
  • Deceitful conduct towards GMAC: accepting remortgage funds without redeeming prior charges, failing to carry out searches, and signing inaccurate certificates of title
  • Used client money to run his firm and keep it afloat despite knowing the Accounts Rules

Mitigating factors:

  • Sritharan fully cooperated with the investigation
  • Sritharan paid substantial sums into client account to try to make good the shortfall (£470,000 plus further sums)
  • Numerous written testimonials as to competence
  • No finding of dishonesty in the intervention proceedings before Harry J
  • Did not abscond with client money
  • For Second Respondent: limited role as salaried partner with no equity interest, much lower culpability, admitted allegations at earliest opportunity, full cooperation, severe financial hardship

Duties engaged

Documents

Source: https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/case/9207/