Skip to main content
discipline 3 October 2026
‹ Browse decisions

Decision record

Stephen Anthony John-Cyrus

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
BodySolicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT)
Professionsolicitor
Case number9435/2006
Date01/01/2006
OutcomeS.43 Order (clerks)

Allegation / charges

Others

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

SanctionFine
FineGBP 1,000
CostsGBP 8,000
Dishonesty foundYes

Two solicitor partners (Aziz and Okpoko) of Chiltons Solicitors admitted conduct unbefitting a solicitor for accounts breaches, client account withdrawals, failure to inform lender clients, and inadequate supervision of an unadmitted clerk, Mr John-Cyrus, who worked in a separate office. The Tribunal found the clerk had acted dishonestly (manipulating conveyancing transactions in his own name, causing shortages, and using misleading letters). The solicitors were found honest but negligent in supervision; each was fined £1,000. Mr John-Cyrus was made subject to a section 43 employment restriction order. Costs of £8,000 were ordered jointly and severally, one third each.

Duties found breached:

Aggravating factors:

  • Client account shortage of £181,074.44 (including £86,175 and £79,399.01 shortages persisting for months)
  • Dishonest conduct of the clerk facilitated by lack of supervision
  • Misleading letters to lender Standard Life overstating the clerk's period of employment

Mitigating factors:

  • Solicitors admitted the allegations from the outset and were contrite
  • No dishonesty on the part of the solicitors and no personal gain
  • Good character with supportive testimonials
  • Duped by an experienced older employee believed to be a licensed conveyancer
  • Breaches promptly rectified; subsequent Accountant's Reports unqualified and re-inspection satisfactory
  • SIO inspection followed shortly after PSA visit, leaving little time to correct matters
  • Seven of eight 'deposit paid direct' transactions were legitimately paid to estate agents

Duties engaged

Documents

Source: https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/case/9435/