Huw Price

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

Huw Price, a sole practitioner of Valleys Law Solicitors admitted in 1993, was found to have repeatedly given false and misleading information to the SRA's Regulatory Supervisor and Forensic Investigation Officer about client money held (falsely claiming £3,000 for one client and that he had sent a cheque to Mrs P, when in fact around £20,000 was held for multiple clients). He failed to maintain accounting records, conduct reconciliations, return client money promptly, and remedy breaches. He practised as a sole practitioner without authorisation and in breach of practising certificate conditions from 2015-2017, and failed to notify the SRA of bankruptcy proceedings and his bankruptcy order (concealing it when applying to lift his practising certificate suspension and applying for a new certificate). The Tribunal proceeded in his absence. Dishonesty was expressly found proved in respect of allegations 1.1, 1.2, 1.8 and 1.9. All allegations were found proved save one aspect (Outcome 10.8 for allegation 1.1.2). He was struck off the Roll and ordered to pay costs of £24,029.87.

Duties found breached:

• Uphold public trust in the profession
• Act in the client's best interests
• No improper use of client money
• Prompt accounting and return of money
• Accounting records, reconciliation and reports
• Firm governance, systems and compliance
• Cooperate openly with regulators
• Self-report to the regulator
• Good faith and courtesy to colleagues
• Not misrepresent regulated status

Aggravating factors:

• Dishonesty found proved relating to client money and withholding information
• Deliberate and planned course of misconduct over a period of time (approx 2 years re withholding client money)
• Prolonged concealment of wrongdoing
• Solicitor of 23 years' experience who deliberately misled his regulator
• Previously rebuked and fined for practising without authorisation but continued to do so
• Knew or ought to have known conduct was in material breach of obligations
• High level of culpability; breach of position of trust regarding client money
• Financial impact on clients as their money was withheld

Mitigating factors:

• Apologised for mistakes in his email of 13 August 2018
• Did not contest the allegations
• Applied to remove himself from the roll and stated he did not wish to work as a solicitor in future