Joyce F Benson & Edward A C Keazor

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

Two partners of Bensons Solicitors faced allegations of serious Solicitors Accounts Rules breaches, including a £1.7m client account shortage. The Tribunal found the First Respondent (Benson) dishonest under the Twinsectra combined test, including misappropriating client funds, signing a cheque to her own company while denying knowledge, failing to disclose prior dishonesty convictions on her admission application, transferring client files without authority, and failing to disclose true purchase prices to lenders. The Second Respondent (Keazor) was NOT found dishonest but was found reckless in his stewardship as senior/supervising partner. Both were struck off the Roll. Costs apportioned 70:30: First Respondent £23,100, Second Respondent £9,900.

Duties found breached:

• Disclose material information to client
• No conflict between current clients
• No improper use of client money
• Accounting records, reconciliation and reports
• Self-report to the regulator
• Report serious misconduct of others

Aggravating factors:

• Very large client account shortage of approximately £1.7 million arising in a firm open only about two years
• Dishonesty relating to clients' money (First Respondent) of the most serious kind
• First Respondent signed cheque to her own company (Walm Lane Properties Ltd) yet claimed not to know where funds went
• First Respondent's dishonest concealment of prior dishonesty convictions on solicitor application
• Second Respondent's serious abdication of responsibility and recklessness as senior/supervising partner

Mitigating factors:

• Second Respondent was misled by First Respondent and not found dishonest
• Second Respondent closed the firm immediately to protect clients once seriousness became clear
• Second Respondent cooperated and made appropriate admissions
• Second Respondent's ill-health at relevant time; pro bono work and modest income
• Allegation (viii) not substantiated against Second Respondent