Mark Ian Williams
JurisdictionEngland & Wales
BodySolicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT)
Professionsolicitor
Case number12626/2024
Date18/02/2025
OutcomeSuspend - Fixed Period
Allegation / charges
Breaches, Client Money, Code of Conduct for Solicitors, REL's & RFL's 2019, Lack of Integrity, Practice Framework Rules, Solicitors Accounts Rules 2019, SRA Principles 2011, SRA Principles 2019
Findings — machine-extracted (anthropic-batch:claude-opus-4-8); verify against the decision
SanctionSuspension
Suspension6 months
CostsGBP 5,000
Dishonesty foundNo
Duties found breached:
- Integrity
- Uphold public trust in the profession
- Segregate client money
- Prompt accounting and return of money
- Good faith and courtesy to colleagues
- Not misrepresent regulated status
Aggravating factors:
- Total culpability and high level of harm
- Lack of insight into the importance of client money safety and operating within a regulated environment
- Concern about future conduct when acting for such clients
- Serious oversight in retaining balance of client money for about 9 months
- Prior disciplinary finding (2015 Agreed Outcome, fined GBP 3,000) - though given limited weight due to extenuating circumstances
Mitigating factors:
- No dishonesty found
- Failings not the result of intentional wrongdoing
- Genuine intention to help and support clients
- Apologised and admitted all allegations; made sensible concessions
- Introduced a protocol document to improve transparency going forward
- 41 character references from former clients, legal professionals and others
- Very limited means
- Extenuating circumstances surrounding the earlier disciplinary matter
Codes & rules applied
Duties engaged
- Integrity
- No bribery or improper gifts
- Personal probity and fitness to practise
- Uphold public trust in the profession
- No unlawful discrimination or harassment
- Segregate client money
- Prompt accounting and return of money
- Accounting records, reconciliation and reports
- No personal handling of client money
- Good faith and courtesy to colleagues
- No improper fee-sharing or partnership
- Not misrepresent regulated status