Skip to main content
discipline 4 October 2026
‹ Browse decisions

Decision record

Michael Lyons & Kelly Lyons

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
BodySolicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT)
Professionsolicitor
Case number11435/2015
Date01/01/2015
OutcomeS.43 Order (clerks), Strike off

Allegation / charges

Breaches, Client Money, Failures, Solicitors' Accounts Rules

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

SanctionStrike Off
FineGBP 10,000
CostsGBP 38,801
Dishonesty foundYes

Michael Lyons, an experienced solicitor practising as Lyons Solicitors, acted for both seller (DF) and buyer (WH) in the sale of Flat 12. DF sold for £115,000 while WH paid £125,000; there was no genuine sub-sale, and the £10,000 difference was misappropriated by routing funds through Orchards, the Estate Agency run by his wife Kelly Lyons (the Second Respondent, an unadmitted clerk). The Tribunal found the First Respondent had misappropriated client funds, submitted false TR1 and AP1 forms to HMLR (false price, false attestation, false conveyancer details), made improper client account withdrawals, failed to disclose material information to clients, failed to remedy the shortage, and failed to cooperate with the SRA including ignoring two Section 44B Notices. Dishonesty was expressly found against both Respondents applying the Twinsectra test. The Second Respondent falsely attested a signature she never witnessed and communicated a lower offer to the seller than the actual offer received. Neither Respondent attended. The First Respondent was struck off; the Second Respondent was made subject to a Section 43 order and fined £10,000. Costs of £38,800.65 (reduced from £43,800.65) were ordered jointly and severally.

Duties found breached:

Aggravating factors:

  • Proven dishonesty that was deliberate, calculated and a complete departure from expected standards
  • Motivated by financial gain
  • Concealment of misconduct - routing funds through Estate Agency to disguise the difference
  • Denial of impropriety when first questioned
  • Failure to cooperate with the SRA
  • Direct harm caused to clients WH and DF
  • First Respondent was an experienced solicitor

Duties engaged

Documents

Source: https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/case/11435/