M C Wijesekera & Another

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

Two partners of Peiris Solicitors faced allegations arising from a client account shortage of ~£586,000 caused by conveyancing transactions, misuse of client funds, breaches of undertakings, failed reconciliations, a late accountant's report and failure to comply with an Adjudicator's compensation direction. The Tribunal found allegations 1–6 proved against both partners and allegations 7–9 against the Second Respondent (Wijesekera), whom it found had acted dishonestly in making improper withdrawals and untrue statements to clients, lenders and other solicitors. The Second Respondent was struck off the Roll and ordered to pay £25,175.65 costs. The First Respondent, found reckless and naive but not dishonest, was suspended for 2 years and ordered to contribute £5,000 costs (not enforceable without leave). Both were subject to enforcement of the Adjudicator's £6,606 compensation and £1,080 costs directions. Total costs were £30,175.65.

Duties found breached:

• No improper communication with the court
• No improper use of client money
• Prompt accounting and return of money
• Accounting records, reconciliation and reports
• Diligence and timeliness
• Honour professional undertakings
• Good faith and courtesy to colleagues

Aggravating factors:

• Express finding of dishonesty against the Second Respondent (conscious impropriety)
• Minimum client account shortage of £586,116.62 which could not be replaced
• Repeatedly misled clients, lenders and other solicitors by false statements
• Substantial harm to public – over £703,503 paid from Compensation Fund with ~£1.45m pending claims
• First Respondent's extreme recklessness in abrogating all financial responsibility to a newly qualified partner and ignoring warning letters

Mitigating factors:

• First Respondent found naive rather than dishonest, making no financial gain
• First Respondent's severe ill-health (multiple sclerosis)
• First Respondent believed she had been taken advantage of by the Second Respondent
• First Respondent's difficult personal and financial circumstances