Steven Platts & Another

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

Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found 20 allegations proved against the First Respondent (a solicitor admitted 1975) arising from improper 'sweeping up' billing on client account, paying bills without notifying clients, unjustified bills, failure to return client money, providing banking facilities, a £24,503 client account shortfall, inadequate firm management/supervision, misleading information to the SRA investigator about a partner's status, a misleading PII proposal form, failure to comply with a Legal Ombudsman award, and failure to notify the SRA of the firm's closure. The dishonesty allegation (in relation to allegations 1.6, 1.9 and 1.13) was withdrawn with the Tribunal's permission, finding insufficient evidence; the Tribunal found lack of integrity but made no express finding of dishonesty. The First Respondent was fined £20,000, made subject to indefinite practising restrictions (no sole practice/partnership, no holding client money, no COLP/COFA, SRA-approved employment only) and ordered to pay £32,000 costs. The Third Respondent, an unadmitted clerk, was made subject to a section 43 order and ordered to pay £4,000 costs. (A second respondent, Mr LF, had earlier settled via a Regulatory Settlement Agreement with a £2,000 fine and £1,000 costs.)

Duties found breached:

• Account for interest on client money
• Cooperate openly with regulators
• No conflict between current clients
• No improper communication with the court
• No taking unfair advantage
• Not mislead third parties or opponents
• Orderly wind-down and contingency cover
• Prompt accounting and return of money

Aggravating factors:

• Conduct was calculated, deliberate and repeated as part of a general 'sweeping up' billing practice
• Lack of any robust control or supervision systems
• Took advantage of deceased clients and unsophisticated working men's clubs
• Solicitor of 40 years' experience holding judicial appointments who should have known better
• Two consecutive years of qualified accounts
• Provided false/misleading information to the SRA investigator and on the PII proposal form
• Startling lack of insight; treated breaches as merely technical

Mitigating factors:

• Many bills appeared to have been generated by former partner Mr W or by the Third Respondent
• Made considerable efforts to reimburse client account once losses uncovered (only SU Football Club balance outstanding)
• Previously unblemished career of 40 years
• Cooperated with the investigation
• Positive testimonials and community/judicial service
• No client complaints to the SRA and continued confidence of merged firm