Skip to main content
discipline 3 October 2026
‹ Browse decisions

Decision record

Stephen Wilbert Dermont Sam & Another

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
BodySolicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT)
Professionsolicitor
Case number9531/2006
Date01/01/2006
OutcomeReprimand, Strike off

Allegation / charges

Breaches, Client Money, Others

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

SanctionStrike Off
CostsGBP 40,000
Dishonesty foundYes

Two partners of Sam Moseley & Co faced allegations of accounts breaches. The First Respondent (Sam) was found to have acted in conflict of interest through his ownership/role in bridging finance company AGMS, permitted withdrawals breaching Rule 22(8), improperly used clients' money for other clients and for the firm's own PAYE liability (£57,798 from O Property Limited), and failed to remedy breaches or deliver an Accountant's Report. The Tribunal made an express finding of dishonesty against the First Respondent to the high (criminal) standard, applying Twinsectra v Yardley and Barlow Clowes. He was struck off and ordered to pay £40,000 costs. The Second Respondent, a criminal practitioner who relied on his partner, was found liable as a partner but no dishonesty was alleged; he was reprimanded and ordered to pay £10,000 costs. One allegation was withdrawn and allegation (viii) against the Second Respondent was left on file.

Duties found breached:

Aggravating factors:

  • Cavalier attitude to stewardship of clients' funds
  • Minimum cash shortage of at least £179,258.55
  • Systematic use of client money without proper written authority
  • Continued denial of conflict of interest

Mitigating factors:

  • Second Respondent had no direct involvement in the misconduct and had set up accounting systems including an experienced bookkeeper
  • Second Respondent did everything he could to put matters right and ensure no client lost money
  • Both Respondents bankrupt and suffered severe financial/professional loss
  • No dishonesty alleged against Second Respondent

Duties engaged

Documents

Source: https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/case/9531/