Martin Keith Waters & Rodney William Noon

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

SDT decision concerning two respondents at Arrans Solicitors. First Respondent Martin Waters (sole principal/COLP/COFA) admitted/was found to have allowed a suspended solicitor to act for Client A, caused a £384,469.57 client account shortage, failed to replace monies promptly, failed in supervision/systems, breached COFA duties and failed to respond to SRA requests; allegations 1.4, 1.5 and 1.7 (a disputed £10,000 payment) were dismissed for insufficient evidence. His breaches included lack of integrity (Principle 2) but NOT dishonesty. He was suspended 6 months with 3 years of practice conditions and ordered to pay £15,000 costs. Second Respondent Rodney Noon admitted practising while suspended, dishonestly failing to inform Client A of his suspension, dishonestly providing inaccurate information to the SRA, and failing to notify the SRA of new employment. With express dishonesty findings and prior disciplinary history, he was struck off the Roll and ordered to pay £6,000 costs.

Duties found breached:

• Act only on proper, lawful instructions
• Handle inadvertently received material
• Keep client informed and respond promptly
• No conflict between current clients
• No improper use of client money
• Non-discriminatory acceptance and cab-rank
• Self-report to the regulator

Aggravating factors:

• Second Respondent's proven and admitted dishonesty
• Second Respondent's two previous disciplinary matters (2012 and 2015)
• Both respondents were experienced solicitors in direct control of circumstances
• Breach of trust placed in them by clients
• First Respondent abdicated regulatory responsibilities as sole principal and COFA

Mitigating factors:

• First Respondent was victim of a physical assault around the time of some misconduct
• First Respondent fully replaced the client account shortage (by October 2019), borrowing personally
• First Respondent made early and frank admissions and showed insight
• Second Respondent not financially motivated; paid for counsel from own funds
• Second Respondent's apology to client and profession; admitted all allegations including dishonesty

⚠ figures not found verbatim in the source were dropped: ["unverified_costs_amount=21000"]