Michael Schwartz

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

Following a September 2016 judgment in which the Tribunal found the Respondent had lacked integrity and breached core Principles (and imposed a five-year suspension itself suspended subject to conditions), the Respondent applied to vary the condition requiring SRA approval of his employment, arguing it effectively prevented his freelance criminal work. The Tribunal found no change of circumstances justifying variation, noted the condition was a normal protective measure, and was concerned that the Respondent had admitted his witness statement was untrue and that he had deliberately breached the condition on 14 September 2016. The Tribunal referred to the Respondent's 'apparent dishonesty and lack of integrity' but made no express finding of dishonesty in this hearing, leaving it for the SRA to pursue. The application was dismissed and the Respondent ordered to pay costs of £1,985.

Duties found breached:

• Honour professional undertakings

Aggravating factors:

• Admitted deliberate breach of the condition only 5 days after it was imposed
• Gave two different/inconsistent accounts on the same day (witness statement contradicted by oral evidence), described by the Tribunal as apparent dishonesty and lack of integrity
• Risk posed by the Respondent had increased rather than diminished
• Ground of the application shifted at the last minute with no prior notice
• This was his third appearance before the Tribunal, all involving dealings with client money

Mitigating factors:

• Apologised for the admitted breach
• Content for all other conditions to remain in place
• Difficult financial circumstances with no current income