Skip to main content
discipline 3 October 2026
‹ Browse decisions

Decision record

Timothy John Wilkinson

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
BodySolicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT)
Professionsolicitor
Case number11311/2014
Date01/01/2014
OutcomeStrike off

Allegation / charges

Breaches, Failures

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

SanctionStrike Off
CostsGBP 65,000
Dishonesty foundNo

Timothy John Wilkinson, a solicitor admitted in 1972 and partner at Burr Sugden, acted as professional executor and trustee of two estates (of E and H) whose assets were intended for the three children of RC. Over many years he facilitated transfer of trust assets into RC's sole name, then to Isle of Man companies, then to a Cayman Islands company (AL), all under the control of a tax adviser PT, losing all trustee control. The child beneficiaries received nothing but school-fee cash; assets were ultimately lost to satisfy RC's debts after RC's bankruptcy. The Tribunal found allegations 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 1.6 (recklessness) proved. On allegation 1.4 it found lack of integrity in backdating a transfer sent to HM Land Registry (but not the contract), and found dishonesty (1.5) NOT proved - the Respondent was muddled rather than dishonest. He was struck off the Roll and ordered to pay costs of £65,000.

Duties found breached:

Aggravating factors:

  • Misconduct repeated over many years of trusteeship
  • Three trigger points where he could have acted but abdicated responsibility each time
  • Meticulous attendance notes showed he knew of the risks and deliberately proceeded
  • Attempted to pass responsibility for obtaining independent advice back to others
  • Beneficiaries were minors initially and he failed to protect them
  • Showed no insight, blaming everyone else including the beneficiaries

Mitigating factors:

  • Low motivation; misconduct not planned or spontaneous
  • Related only to one estate in all his years of practice
  • Excellent testimonials and client survey responses
  • Clearly out of his depth with a complex scheme
  • No personal benefit gained
  • Beneficiary witness (W) held no bitterness and did not blame him

⚠ figures not found verbatim in the source were dropped: ["review_dishonesty_finding_cue_present"]

Duties engaged

Documents

Source: https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/case/11311/