Paul Michael Hewitt & Another

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

Two partners of Hewitt & Co, Sheffield, faced disciplinary proceedings following a forensic investigation revealing client account shortages and numerous Solicitors Accounts Rules breaches. There was expressly no allegation of dishonesty. The First Respondent (Paul Michael Hewitt) was found to have committed all 26 allegations, including practising without a practising certificate after bankruptcy, misuse of a suspense account, undisclosed profits, and multiple failures to account and to comply with undertakings; he was struck off and ordered to pay £62,888 costs. The Second Respondent admitted allegations 1-12 and 26; the Tribunal found his integrity intact and his culpability far less, fining him £5,000 with £5,000 costs. Total costs fixed at £67,888.

Duties found breached:

• Disclose adverse law to the court
• No improper communication with the court
• Act in the client's best interests
• Disclose material information to client
• No conflict between current clients
• Handle inadvertently received material
• No improper use of client money
• Accounting records, reconciliation and reports
• Account for interest on client money
• Safeguard documents and limit liens
• Professional indemnity insurance
• Hold a current practising certificate
• Report serious misconduct of others
• Honour professional undertakings

Aggravating factors:

• Minimum cash shortage of £10,576.27 on client account causing misuse of clients' money
• Previous appearance before the Tribunal on 26 April 2008 for similar matters (fined £2,500 and costs £24,000)
• First Respondent continued to practise and authorise client account payments after suspension/bankruptcy despite repeated SRA warnings
• Undisclosed profit of some £24,000 per annum from telegraphic transfer charges
• Extended delays in accounting to client Mr B (over three years)

Mitigating factors:

• Second Respondent admitted the allegations against him
• Second Respondent's culpability far less than the First Respondent; complaints did not relate to matters he dealt with
• Second Respondent had a subordinate/salaried role and was dominated by the First Respondent
• Tribunal did not doubt the integrity of the Second Respondent
• Second Respondent resigned once insurance was not renewed and stayed on only to place clients safely