Richard Mallett & Sharon Mallett

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

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found multiple allegations proved against both Richard Mallett (First Respondent) and Sharon Mallett (Second Respondent), directors of Malletts Solicitors Ltd. The Firm raised over £1m through Loan Notes and client loans and used the funds for general business expenses contrary to the stated restricted purposes. The Tribunal found dishonesty against the First Respondent (allegations 1.1 misuse of Loan Note monies, 1.2 taking client loans without independent legal advice, and 1.5 allowing PII cover to be presented as security) and against the Second Respondent (allegation 2.1 misuse of Loan Note monies). On allegation 2.3 (false statements in a Defence) the Tribunal found lack of integrity and recklessness but expressly dismissed dishonesty. Allegations 1.3 and 1.4 (false statements to investors Kashdan and Magee) were dismissed as unproven. A preliminary application to stay for abuse of process (delay/Article 6) was refused, though the Tribunal accepted an approximately six-month unreasonable delay and a breach of Article 6. Both Respondents were struck off the Roll, with costs of £84,000 (First) and £56,000 (Second).

Duties found breached:

• Act in the client's best interests
• Cooperate openly with regulators
• Firm governance, systems and compliance
• Honour professional undertakings
• Integrity
• No conflict between current clients
• No taking unfair advantage
• Uphold public trust in the profession

Aggravating factors:

• Proven dishonesty (First Respondent: misuse of Loan Note monies, taking client loans without independent advice, PII misrepresentation; Second Respondent: misuse of Loan Note monies)
• Misconduct was deliberate, calculated and repeated over a period of time
• Significant harm to investors and Mr Smith who lost substantial sums (including life savings for Mr Dodman)
• Breach of trust placed in experienced solicitors
• Significant harm to the reputation of the profession

Mitigating factors:

• No previous adverse disciplinary findings for either Respondent
• Second Respondent's serious personal and health circumstances and workplace pressures (though held not to amount to exceptional circumstances)
• Second Respondent had a secondary role and made a number of admissions
• Positive reference and continued professional work over 4.5 years for Second Respondent