C H M Robson & Another

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

Two solicitors, partners of White Rose Solicitors, faced allegations following theft of ~£935,000 from client account by their cashier and various Accounts Rules breaches. The Tribunal dismissed the allegation of a sham partnership and found no dishonesty in that regard. It did find the First Respondent acted dishonestly (per Twinsectra) by deliberately breaching an undertaking to Preferred Mortgages Ltd, diverting the mortgage advance to a third party for a £10,000 fee, causing loss. Finding no exceptional circumstances, the First Respondent was struck off and ordered to pay £15,521.65 costs. The Second Respondent, against whom dishonesty was not proved but who admitted numerous regulatory/accounts breaches, was fined £7,500 and ordered to pay £5,173.88 costs.

Duties found breached:

• No improper communication with the court
• Advise on alternatives, settlement and outcome
• No improper use of client money
• Prompt accounting and return of money
• Accounting records, reconciliation and reports
• Diligence and timeliness
• Hold a current practising certificate
• Honour professional undertakings

Aggravating factors:

• Dishonesty was serious and calculated (First Respondent)
• Client Preferred Mortgages Ltd suffered actual loss of £190,000
• Conduct brought the profession into disrepute
• Charged a substantial fee to deliberately breach an undertaking

Mitigating factors:

• Isolated one-off incident, not repeated (First Respondent)
• No exceptional circumstances found but positive character references
• Firm properly closed down with no intervention; Respondents acted responsibly at closure
• First Respondent took a legal charge from the dishonest cashier to protect client funds
• Financial difficulties / IVA in place
• First Respondent was himself the victim of a fraud