§ discipline
‹ Browse decisions

Philip Jolyon Huxtable

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
BodySolicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT)
Professionsolicitor
Case number8548/2002
Date01/01/2002
OutcomeStrike off

Allegation / charges

Client Money, Others

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

SanctionStrike Off
CostsGBP 15,501
Dishonesty foundYes

Sole practitioner Philip Jolyon Huxtable was found to have engaged in serious and culpable overcharging on four probate matters (N, P, B and J deceased), charging between roughly four-and-a-half and six times reasonable costs, with total overcharging exceeding £90,000 before VAT. The Tribunal found he withdrew client money in breach of the Solicitors' Accounts Rules 1998 and made round-sum cost transfers unsupported by work or costing notes. It expressly found this was a dishonest use of money entrusted to him, going beyond mere recklessness, and rejected the claim he derived no benefit. He was struck off the Roll and ordered to pay fixed costs of £15,501.39.

Duties found breached:

Aggravating factors:

  • Serious and culpable overcharging across four probate files with overcharge exceeding £90,000 (before VAT)
  • Pattern of billing amounting to taking client money when he felt like it (e.g. three cost transfers in one calendar month)
  • Round-sum bills unsupported by work or costing notes
  • Conduct more serious than recklessness - a dishonest use of money entrusted to him
  • Cynical appropriation of client money solely for his own benefit
  • Substantial claims paid out from the Law Society's compensation fund

Mitigating factors:

  • Long career since admission in 1970 with previously unblemished record
  • Ill health of the Respondent and his wife
  • Management pressures from integrating acquired practices without computerised accounting and loss of experienced probate staff
  • Good character evidence from Mr Fulthorpe of Counsel
  • Respondent insolvent/subject to IVA and facing bankruptcy
  • Respondent consented to removal from the Roll

Duties engaged

Documents

Source: https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/case/8548/