Skip to main content
discipline 4 October 2026
‹ Browse decisions

Decision record

D J Bultitude and N C Ritson

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
BodySolicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT)
Professionsolicitor
Case number8685/2002
Date01/01/2002
OutcomeReprimand, Strike off

Allegation / charges

Client Money, Failures, Solicitors' Accounts Rules

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

SanctionStrike Off
CostsGBP 500
Dishonesty foundYes

Two partners of the firm Seakens faced allegations of conduct unbefitting a solicitor arising from an OSS inspection that found books not compliant with the Solicitors Accounts Rules and a client account shortage of £46,971.57, largely from improper transfers of small client ledger credit balances to office account using backdated 'debit notes' to satisfy the reporting accountant's demands. Bultitude, sole equity partner, admitted accounts breaches but denied dishonesty; the Tribunal, applying Twinsectra and Royal Brunei v Tan, found conscious impropriety amounting to dishonesty in transferring clients' money without knowing entitlement and struck him off, ordering him to pay the whole of the costs (subject to detailed assessment). Ritson, a salaried partner with only strict-liability involvement, was found NOT guilty of conduct unbefitting a solicitor, was reprimanded and ordered to pay a £500 contribution to costs.

Duties found breached:

Aggravating factors:

  • Sole equity partner with hands-on responsibility and sole signatory who signed the transfer cheque
  • Prior reprimand in 1994 regarding late Accountant's Report
  • Backdated debit notes to 30 April 1999 when actually created in November 1999, meaning the books did not show a true and fair position
  • Transferred a large sum of clients' money to office account without knowing entitlement, prioritising filing of Accountant's Report over integrity of client funds
  • Deliberately failed to ask questions to which he would rather not know the answer

Mitigating factors:

  • Cooperated throughout and made prompt admissions with only limited denials
  • Steps had been started to identify correct destination of funds and correct transfers
  • No client suffered loss and shortages were replaced
  • Otherwise unblemished career of some 18-22 years
  • Genuine remorse and positive testimonials

Duties engaged

Documents

Source: https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/case/8685/