I A V Pratchett, M Obeng & A Das

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

Three respondents faced charges arising from an SRA forensic investigation into Pratchetts Solicitors. The First Respondent (Pratchett, sole practitioner) was found to have acted with gross recklessness in selling his practice without due diligence, mishandling conveyancing transactions (NR), the SM complaint, and breaching the Solicitors Accounts Rules. The Tribunal expressly found he was NOT dishonest and had been duped; allegations regarding Lord of the Manor title transfers were not proved. He was suspended for 5 years with subsequent practising conditions. The Second Respondent (Obeng), who had conduct of fraudulent/attempted-fraud conveyancing transactions and was already indefinitely suspended, was struck off the Roll. The Third Respondent (Das), a former Registered Foreign Lawyer complicit in the misconduct and who opened Barclays accounts trading as the firm, was ordered not to be restored to the Register of Foreign Lawyers except by Tribunal order. Total costs assessed at £25,000, apportioned £10,000 (First, not enforceable without leave), £10,000 (Second) and £5,000 (Third). No fines were imposed in these proceedings.

Duties found breached:

• Accounting records, reconciliation and reports
• Act in the client's best interests
• Diligence and timeliness
• No conflict between current clients
• No improper communication with the court
• No improper use of client money
• Uphold public trust in the profession

Aggravating factors:

• Second appearance before the Tribunal for the First Respondent; failed to learn from earlier experience
• Lack of insight by First Respondent into his own misconduct
• Gross recklessness exposing firm and bank accounts to exploitation, placing client money at serious risk
• Second Respondent previously indefinitely suspended; serious threat to reputation of profession
• Third Respondent disengaged from investigation when questions became searching

Mitigating factors:

• First Respondent was not accused of and not found to be dishonest; Tribunal believed he had been duped
• First Respondent's ill-health and poor financial circumstances
• First Respondent admitted as solicitor at age 60 with limited experience
• Some admissions and partial remedying of account breaches by First Respondent