Preeti King

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

The Respondent, a solicitor practising as a director of King Solicitors (UK) Ltd, faced allegations under both a Rule 5 and Rule 7 Statement. She had been convicted at Woolwich Crown Court in August 2014 of perjury (wilful making of a false statement by a sworn witness), having given false evidence at the trial of Mr HA. The Tribunal found no exceptional circumstances to go behind the certificate of conviction and found allegations 1.1 and 1.2 proved including dishonesty. The Tribunal also found dishonesty in relation to allegation 2.2, where the Respondent represented an office account in her own name (trading as Morgans Solicitors) as a client account in a conveyancing transaction to complete the sale of a flat. Allegations 2.1, 2.3, 3.1 and parts of 3.2/4 were not proved because the Tribunal could not be sure she lacked some relationship with Morgans Solicitors. Allegations regarding failure to obtain run-off cover, failure to cooperate with the regulator, failure to produce records, the improper referral arrangement with Mr HA and failure to provide client care information were all found proved. Given two findings of dishonesty (including perjury) and a complete lack of insight, the Tribunal ordered the Respondent be struck off and pay costs of \u00a336,000.

Duties found breached:

• Act in the client's best interests
• Cooperate openly with regulators
• Integrity
• No conflict between current clients
• No improper use of client money
• Professional indemnity insurance
• Self-report to the regulator
• Uphold public trust in the profession

Aggravating factors:

• Criminal conviction for perjury - wilful dishonesty
• Deliberate, planned misrepresentation of the nature of the bank account in the conveyancing transaction
• Dishonesty motivated by self-preservation
• Put significant client funds at risk and placed another firm of solicitors at risk
• Complete lack of insight into her misconduct
• Evasive and unsatisfactory witness; some answers plainly incredible
• Continued to dispute that she had been convicted of perjury
• Conduct of the hearing added significantly to costs

Mitigating factors:

• No previous appearances before the Tribunal
• Self-reported (though given little weight as conviction would have come to attention anyway)
• Poor medical condition (limited weight)
• Limited financial means