Kimberley Bridge & John Charles McNabb & Tracy Stansfield & Nicola Roach

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

SDT case against four respondents arising from SRA inspection of SFN Solicitors. The First Respondent, Kimberley Bridge, the managing partner, was found to have acted dishonestly across multiple allegations involving a fabricated transaction, forged documents, false statements to the investigator, teeming and lading of client money, and a minimum cash shortage of £418,099.42; she was struck off the Roll. The Fourth Respondent, Nicola Roach (an unadmitted employee and the First Respondent's sister), was also found dishonest and made subject to a Section 43 Order. The Second Respondent (partner) admitted accounts breaches and was fined £2,000 (reduced from £10,000 for means). The Third Respondent (partner) admitted breaches and was reprimanded, having been ill and absent and having self-reported. Total costs of £48,787.85 were assessed: First and Fourth Respondents jointly and severally liable for £31,947.85 (immediate), Second and Third Respondents £8,420 each (not enforceable without leave).

Duties found breached:

• Accounting records, reconciliation and reports
• Act in the client's best interests
• Complaints procedure and handling
• Cooperate openly with regulators
• Firm governance, systems and compliance
• Handle inadvertently received material
• Honesty
• Integrity
• No conflict between current clients
• No improper use of client money
• Report serious misconduct of others

Aggravating factors:

• Premeditated and systematic conduct over a lengthy period
• Creation and provision of forged documents to the SRA investigator
• Repeated lies and deceptions including fabricated fire/asbestos excuses to obstruct inspection
• Teeming and lading of client monies
• Concealing the investigation from fellow partners
• Minimum cash shortage of £418,099.42 and large unallocated payments totalling £714,224.20
• Misappropriation of client funds for personal benefit

Mitigating factors:

• For Second Respondent: no personal benefit, cooperative once aware, organised orderly closure, unblemished record, low culpability, limited financial means
• For Third Respondent: serious health problems, not physically present during the relevant period, self-reported financial issues, full cooperation, no personal benefit, bankruptcy and substantial losses, good character references