Liaqat Hussain & Rene Leonard Neville De Silva & Aman Sheenan Kayani & Sheraz Sultan

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

Marks and Marks (Harrow) firm case. Over 29 Feb-31 Aug 2016 transfers were made from client to office account exceeding client funds, creating debit balances of £14,311 to £47,108, with improper reconciliations offsetting credits against debits and at least two backdated bills. The First (sole equity partner/RFL), Second (salaried partner/COLP) and Third (associate/COFA) Respondents admitted all allegations including recklessness; the Tribunal found breaches of Principles 2,6,8,10 and SAR Rules 20.06, 29.12, 29.14, 17.2, 20.3, finding lack of integrity but expressly no dishonesty. They were fined £12,500, £12,500 and £10,000 respectively, jointly and severally liable for £15,600 costs. The Fourth Respondent (unadmitted bookkeeper) had allegation 1.4 found proved and was made subject to a s.43 order, ordered to pay £1,500 costs (reduced for means). Total costs assessed at £18,600.

Duties found breached:

• No taking unfair advantage
• Non-discriminatory acceptance and cab-rank
• No improper use of client money
• Prompt accounting and return of money
• Accounting records, reconciliation and reports

Aggravating factors:

• Misconduct repeated and continued over a period of at least six months
• Respondents knew or ought to have known conduct breached obligations to protect client money and the profession's reputation
• First Respondent had a previous disciplinary matter (Case 9767-2007) also involving Accounts Rules breaches and a client account shortage
• Third Respondent was the COFA yet took no active role in the firm's finances
• Fourth Respondent's backdating of invoices was calculated and became part of his routine operation; used one client's money for the benefit of others

Mitigating factors:

• No client lost money; shortages made good, relatively quickly
• No dishonesty found
• Open and frank admissions by the first three respondents
• Insight and remedial steps taken (COFA training, new fee earners engaged, improved procedures)
• Fourth Respondent cooperated with the SRA, was of limited means, made no financial gain and had insight; had been poorly supervised

⚠ figures not found verbatim in the source were dropped: ["unverified_fine_amount=35000"]