Steven David Simpkins

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

Steven David Simpkins, a sole practitioner solicitor, admitted all allegations save lack of integrity and dishonesty. The Tribunal found he caused/allowed client account shortages of £145,900 (Client A) and £15,913.78 (Client B) with client money used for business purposes, failed as sole manager/COLP/COFA to supervise the firm (having abrogated management to an unqualified staff member), and gave inaccurate/misleading information to the SRA's Forensic Investigation Officer. The Tribunal found his conduct lacked integrity in breach of Principle 5 on all allegations but did NOT find dishonesty, being unsatisfied he knew the information he provided was inaccurate (finding the office manager's evidence vague and lacking credibility). He was suspended for 18 months followed by indefinite practice conditions. No order as to costs was made (SRA sought £33,362.50) because Mr Simpkins was on state benefits with no reasonable prospect of paying.

Duties found breached:

• Integrity
• Not mislead third parties or opponents
• Uphold public trust in the profession
• No improper use of client money
• Prompt accounting and return of money
• Firm governance, systems and compliance
• Good faith and courtesy to colleagues

Aggravating factors:

• Misconduct continued over a period of time
• Harm was foreseeable and Mr Simpkins knew the conduct materially breached his obligations
• Direct harm to clients who did not receive monies promptly, prompting Client B's complaint
• Harm to reputation of the profession

Mitigating factors:

• Difficult personal circumstances including health issues and addiction at the material time
• Open and frank submissions and full co-operation with the SRA investigation
• Previously unblemished regulatory record
• Displayed insight and remorse
• Efforts to repay client money including putting his house on the market
• Shortfall in damages paid by the firm's insurers
• No SRA intervention into the firm, recognising efforts to protect clients

⚠ figures not found verbatim in the source were dropped: ["review_dishonesty_finding_cue_present"]