M A Kentish & Another

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

The First Respondent, Miles Adrian Kentish, was a partner at Stanfords Solicitors responsible for conveyancing. The SRA investigation revealed a minimum client cash shortage of £360,714.52 as at 31 May 2008, large numbers of round sum transfers from client to office account exceeding billed amounts, and partners' drawings far in excess of fee income. The Tribunal found all allegations against the First Respondent proved, including dishonesty, finding he took client monies and made drawings beyond the firm's total billed income, knowing this was dishonest by the standards of reasonable and honest people. He was struck off the Roll and ordered to pay £12,000 costs on a several basis. The Tribunal proceeded in his absence following substituted service. The Second Respondent (responsible for litigation, effectively a "sleeping partner") admitted all remaining allegations against him (the dishonesty allegation and several others were withdrawn). The Tribunal found no dishonesty against him but found dereliction of duty and that he had abandoned the practice and failed to "blow the whistle" on discovering the shortfall. He was suspended for one year and ordered to pay £3,000 costs (not enforceable without Tribunal consent), with a recommendation for future practising conditions.

Duties found breached:

• Accounting records, reconciliation and reports
• Diligence and timeliness
• Honour professional undertakings
• Integrity
• No improper communication with the court
• No improper use of client money
• Not misrepresent regulated status
• Uphold public trust in the profession

Aggravating factors:

• First Respondent took more in drawings than the firm's entire gross fee income between April 2007 and April 2008
• Substantial client account shortfall exceeding £360,000
• First Respondent failed to engage with the SRA or Tribunal and did not respond to correspondence
• Second Respondent allowed his name to be held out as a partner, giving the impression two partners were operating the firm
• Second Respondent failed to act on knowledge of the shortfall