Alvin Gilbert Just & Devon Anthony Brown

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

Solicitor Alvin Just, partner at Just & Brown Solicitors, was found to have failed to hold client money in a client account, failed to account to Client A for sale proceeds of Property B, and failed to cooperate with and dishonestly misled the SRA's investigation (denying he had acted for Client A and concealing Account F, which he used for personal and client transactions). The Tribunal made an express finding of dishonesty on allegation 1.3. Allegations of misappropriation (1.2.2) and the related dishonesty were not proved, and allegation 1.4 (Property C client money) was dismissed under the Rule 9 joint-money exemption. He was also found to have breached two undertakings and to have sent inappropriate communications (though not offensive/threatening). He was struck off the Roll and ordered to pay costs of £41,896.20. Co-respondent Devon Brown, the firm's COFA, was found to have failed in his compliance obligations (breach of Principle 10) and was fined £2,000 with £400 costs.

Duties found breached:

• Act in the client's best interests
• Cooperate openly with regulators
• Honour professional undertakings
• Integrity
• No improper communication with the court
• No improper use of client money
• No taking unfair advantage
• Safeguard documents and limit liens
• Uphold public trust in the profession

Aggravating factors:

• Proven and blatant dishonesty
• Deliberate, calculated and repeated misconduct over a period of time
• Concealment of Account F and misleading the SRA's investigation
• Abuse of position of trust as solicitor handling probate and conveyancing
• Taking advantage of vulnerable client (Client A) and minor beneficiaries
• Caused harm to Client A and to co-respondent Mr Brown
• Motivated by self-preservation and concealment

Mitigating factors:

• Remedied breaches relating to allegations 4 and 5 (paid judgment debt and discharged mortgage, albeit 37 days late)
• Accepted responsibility for breach of undertaking in allegation 5
• No previous disciplinary matters