Roland Ivor Cassam & Peter Rhidian Lewis

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

Two partners at Temple Law faced allegations relating to serious breaches of the SRA Accounts Rules including failure to keep accounting records, carry out reconciliations and safeguard client money and files, resulting in a significant client account shortage and intervention. The Second Respondent admitted all allegations against him (failures regarding accounts and failure to discharge/notify regarding his COLP and COFA roles). The First Respondent admitted the factual allegations but denied dishonesty. The Tribunal proceeded in the absence of both Respondents after refusing the First Respondent's adjournment application. The Tribunal found all allegations proved, and crucially found the First Respondent acted dishonestly in respect of allegation 2.2 - he received £127,000 (part of funds transferred) to redeem his clients' C&G mortgage, failed to do so, dispersed the funds for unknown purposes, and made untruthful statements to clients, the purchaser's solicitors and the investigation officer that the mortgage had been redeemed. The mortgage was only redeemed after a Compensation Fund payment of £143,945.26. The provided text does not include the sanction decision.

Duties found breached:

• Accounting records, reconciliation and reports
• Avoid wasting the court's time
• Handle inadvertently received material
• No conflict between current clients
• No improper use of client money
• Not mislead third parties or opponents
• Proper basis for allegations
• Self-report to the regulator

Aggravating factors:

• Dishonesty found against First Respondent
• Breaches were longstanding (about March 2014 to March 2015) and not remedied
• Significant client account shortage requiring Compensation Fund payment of £143,945.26
• Files went missing between inspection and intervention requiring High Court order
• Second Respondent's failure to perform COLP/COFA role coincided with the failure of the accounts system leading to intervention
• Untruthful statements made to clients and to other solicitors about redemption of mortgage

Mitigating factors:

• Second Respondent made full and unequivocal admissions
• Respondents co-operated to some extent during investigation
• First Respondent indicated funds would be settled and that a six figure sum had been paid

⚠ figures not found verbatim in the source were dropped: ["review_dishonesty_finding_cue_present"]