§ discipline
‹ Back

Jeremy Humphrey Ashton Roberts

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
BodySolicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT)
Professionsolicitor
Case number11325/2015
Date01/01/2015
OutcomeStrike off

Allegation / charges

Breaches, Client Money, Failures, Solicitors' Accounts Rules

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

SanctionStrike Off
CostsGBP 31,600
Dishonesty foundYes

Jeremy Humphrey Ashton Roberts, a solicitor admitted in 1967 and principal of Bendall Roberts, operated a system whereby he raised interim bills on probate matters that he never sent to clients, immediately transferring the money from client to office account to keep the firm's overdraft within its £40,000 limit, then later issued undelivered credit notes leaving the correct (much lower) costs. This created a minimum cash shortage of £202,718.10 as at 30 September 2011. He was the executor in many of the estates concerned. The Tribunal found all allegations proved (admitted) plus dishonesty under the Twinsectra test, describing it as one of the most blatant and systematic instances of dishonesty imaginable. He was struck off the Roll and ordered to pay costs of £31,600. The Respondent did not attend; the hearing proceeded in his absence.

Duties found breached:

Aggravating factors:

  • Systematic and blatant conduct over a long period (since mid-2000s)
  • Minimum cash shortage of over £202,718.10 with actual misuse considerably higher
  • Misused client/estate money to keep firm's overdraft within £40,000 limit, favouring own interests
  • Respondent was executor in a number of the estates, a particular breach of trust
  • Continued the system even after being warned of the issue by an assistant's email in October 2010
  • Did not deliver interim bills to clients to avoid them being questioned
  • Clients and beneficiaries deprived of interest

Mitigating factors:

  • No previous disciplinary findings
  • Claimed health problems and memory difficulties
  • Had retired from legal work in March 2015
  • Asserted no client lost financially and money was repaid
  • Admitted allegations 1.1 to 1.5

Documents

Source: https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/case/11325/