Joyce F Benson & Edward A C Keazor

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

Two partners of Bensons Solicitors faced allegations arising from a Law Society investigation that found a client account shortage of about £1.7 million within two years of the firm opening. The First Respondent, Joyce Benson, was found to have acted dishonestly (unexplained round-sum transfers from client to office account, a cheque paid to her own company Walm Lane Properties while denying knowledge of the funds, undisclosed prior criminal convictions and a dishonest admission application, transferring files without authority, and failing to disclose material information to lender clients). She was struck off and ordered to pay costs of £23,100. The Second Respondent, Edward Keazor, was NOT found dishonest — the Tribunal accepted he had been misled by the First Respondent — but he was found guilty of serious abdication of responsibility and recklessness as senior/supervising partner and was also struck off, ordered to pay costs of £9,900. Costs were apportioned 70:30 from a total of £33,000.

Duties found breached:

• Full disclosure on ex parte applications
• Proper basis for allegations
• Disclose material information to client
• No conflict between current clients
• No improper use of client money
• Accounting records, reconciliation and reports
• Report serious misconduct of others
• No baseless or threatened misconduct report

Aggravating factors:

• Very large client account shortage of approximately £1.7 million in a firm operating only about two years
• Dishonesty relating to clients' money (First Respondent)
• First Respondent signed cheque to her own company while claiming ignorance of where funds went
• Round-sum transfers began only weeks after firm commenced
• First Respondent failed to disclose spent convictions on admission application
• Second Respondent was senior/supervising partner yet reckless with stewardship of client money

Mitigating factors:

• Second Respondent was misled by First Respondent as to true state of accounts
• Second Respondent closed the firm voluntarily to protect clients once seriousness clear
• Second Respondent cooperated and refused to conceal reconciliation statement
• Second Respondent's ill-health (high blood pressure, depression)
• Second Respondent did pro bono work and earned modest income
• Second Respondent had no prior allegations against him