David Andrew Wilson & Natalie Jane Crompton

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

Two partners of Garth Rigby & Co (First Respondent COLP, Second Respondent COFA) admitted numerous breaches of the SRA Principles and Accounts Rules arising from a client account shortage of £85,933.64 (caused by transferring probate costs without delivering bills/obtaining authority), a £9,611.16 debit balance from data errors, inadequate reconciliations, incorrect postings, failure to deliver Accountant's Reports, and failure to rectify breaches. Allegations of overcharging and dishonesty against the Second Respondent were withdrawn before the hearing after expert clarification; no dishonesty was found. The Tribunal found lack of integrity (breach of Principle 2) but expressly distinguished it from dishonesty, holding it related only to process and caused no client loss. The Tribunal approved a 3-month suspension plus conditions for the First Respondent, but rejected the indicated strike-off of the Second Respondent as disproportionate, imposing instead a 2-year suspension with conditions. Costs were apportioned individually (not joint and several): First Respondent £9,714.67; Second Respondent reduced to £4,800 on affordability grounds.

Duties found breached:

• Accounting records, reconciliation and reports
• Integrity
• No improper use of client money
• Non-discriminatory acceptance and cab-rank
• Not misrepresent regulated status
• Prompt accounting and return of money
• Report serious misconduct of others

Aggravating factors:

• Misconduct endured over a period of time
• First Respondent (COLP) ought to have known conduct breached obligations to protect public and reputation of profession
• Second Respondent (COFA) knew or ought to have known conduct was in material breach; experienced solicitor admitted 1999 who should have known better
• Client money put at risk by transfers to office account without clients' knowledge (notably WB deceased, estimate ~£3,000-4,000 versus costs of £64,510.89)

Mitigating factors:

• No loss caused to any client and no overcharging found; work billed had been done
• Catastrophic IT/server failure in October 2012 causing loss of accounting data
• Second Respondent's serious medical conditions/disabilities undermining performance
• Genuine insight and admissions; realistic approach to proceedings
• No previous disciplinary history for either respondent
• Second Respondent put £12,000 of her own money into the firm to make good apparent loss
• First Respondent regularly away from office, trusted long-known partner, prior auditors raised no issues
• First Respondent already penalised through loss of employment and ceasing to sit as Deputy District Judge

⚠ figures not found verbatim in the source were dropped: ["unverified_costs_amount=14514.67"]