§ discipline
‹ Back

Prakash S Mehta

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
BodySolicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT)
Professionsolicitor
Case number10491/2010
Date01/01/2010
OutcomeStrike off, Suspend - Fixed Period

Allegation / charges

Breaches, Client Money, Failures, Solicitors' Accounts Rules

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

SanctionStrike Off
Suspension12 months
CostsGBP 36,977
Dishonesty foundYes

Two partners of Mehtalaw faced allegations of breaching the Solicitors Accounts Rules and Code of Conduct, including misuse of client funds, raising fictitious bills, making payments in breach of a High Court Restraint Order, taking client loans without proper consent, overcharging, failing to inform lender clients of material facts, and failing to co-operate with the SRA. The First Respondent (Mehta) was found dishonest in transferring client monies and reckless regarding the Restraint Order and overcharging, and was struck off. The Second Respondent was not found dishonest or reckless but was suspended for one year for serious failings in client monies stewardship and conflict of interest. Allegation 4 (misleading the SRA) was not proved; allegations 5 and 6 were withdrawn against the First Respondent. Both ordered to pay £36,976.90 costs jointly and severally, not to be enforced without leave of the Tribunal.

Duties found breached:

Aggravating factors:

  • Misuse of client monies to assist firm's cash flow
  • Cash shortage of £46,707.39 on client account
  • Payments of £40,372.39 made in contravention of a High Court Restraint Order
  • Raising of fictitious/inflated bills (£22,618.75 billed against work valued at £5,400)
  • Falsification of documentation and borrowing clients' monies without their knowledge
  • Transfers of client money to First Respondent's personal accounts

Mitigating factors:

  • Some client monies replaced before the forensic investigation officer's visit
  • It had always been the Respondents' intention that borrowed monies be repaid
  • Respondents' parlous financial circumstances
  • Respondents from a close community where people helped each other

Documents

Source: https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/case/10491/