Liaqat Hussain & Rene Leonard Neville De Silva & Aman Sheenan Kayani & Sheraz Sultan

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

Four respondents from Marks and Marks firm faced SDT proceedings after a forensic investigation found transfers from client to office account exceeding client funds, causing debit balances between £14,311 and £47,108 over six months, improper reconciliations offsetting credits against debits, and two backdated invoices. The First (sole equity partner/RFL), Second (salaried partner/COLP) and Third (associate/COFA) Respondents admitted all allegations including recklessness; the Tribunal found lack of integrity but expressly made NO finding of dishonesty. The Fourth Respondent (unadmitted bookkeeper) denied his allegation but was found to have occasioned/been party to acts making it undesirable for him to be in legal practice. Fines: £12,500 each for First and Second, £10,000 for Third; a s.43 order for the Fourth (no fine due to means). Costs assessed at £18,600: £15,600 joint and several against the first three respondents, £1,500 against the Fourth (reduced from £3,000 for limited means).

Duties found breached:

• Accounting records, reconciliation and reports
• No conflict between current clients
• No improper use of client money
• Non-discriminatory acceptance and cab-rank
• Prompt accounting and return of money

Aggravating factors:

• Misconduct repeated and continued over a period of at least six months
• Respondents knew or ought to have known conduct breached obligations to protect public and reputation of profession
• First Respondent had previous disciplinary matter involving Accounts Rules breaches
• Third Respondent was COFA yet had no active role in finances
• Fourth Respondent's backdating of invoices was calculated and planned, using one client's money for another's

Mitigating factors:

• No client lost money; shortfall rectified relatively quickly
• Open and frank admissions by First, Second and Third Respondents
• No dishonesty found
• Firm put procedures in place to avoid repetition; Third Respondent attended COFA training
• Second Respondent demonstrated insight
• Fourth Respondent did not benefit financially, was of limited means, cooperated with investigation and had insight

⚠ figures not found verbatim in the source were dropped: ["unverified_fine_amount=35000"]