Jeremy Michael Wolff & Another

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

Two partners of Merriman White faced conduct-unbefitting allegations arising from Solicitors Accounts Rules breaches, undisclosed conflicts of interest and referral fees relating to claims management companies (Claim Line/Legal Claim Line), and unpaid court judgments. Mr Wolff, who ran the Guildford personal injury department, was found to have dishonestly produced fraudulent 'vetting fee' invoices on the firm's letterhead for work actually done by Claims Direct; applying the Twinsectra combined test the Tribunal found dishonesty proved and struck him off the Roll. Mr Murphy, the senior partner, admitted 11 allegations on the basis of strict partner liability with no dishonesty found and was fined £25,000, with a recommendation he practise only in Law Society-approved employment. Costs to be assessed if not agreed, borne two-thirds by Murphy and one-third by Wolff, plus interlocutory costs against Murphy.

Duties found breached:

• No improper communication with the court
• No taking unfair advantage
• Advise on alternatives, settlement and outcome
• Disclose referrals, commissions and benefits
• No conflict between current clients
• No improper use of client money
• Accounting records, reconciliation and reports
• Supervise staff and delegated work

Aggravating factors:

• Respondents had a financial interest in the referring companies (aggravated the referral fee breach)
• Wolff's dishonesty corroborated by email confirming firm would produce fraudulent invoices for £2.50 each
• Blatantly dishonest course of conduct in producing fraudulent invoices

Mitigating factors:

• Mr Murphy: no dishonesty found; admitted allegations on basis of strict liability as partner
• Mr Murphy had long unblemished career; sought counsel's advice on Claimline scheme
• Mr Murphy suffered severe financial loss (bankruptcy) and personal/professional distress
• Corrective action taken on accounting deficiencies and removal of unadmitted signatory
• Clients who suffered ATE premium shortfalls were reimbursed in full