Skip to main content
discipline 4 October 2026
‹ Browse decisions

Decision record

Henry Charles Adrian Syms

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
BodySolicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT)
Professionsolicitor
Case number12500/2023
Date18/10/2023
OutcomeStrike off

Allegation / charges

Lack of Integrity, Misappropriation of Client Account, Recklessness, Solicitors Accounts Rules 2011, SRA Authorisation Rules, SRA Principles 2011, SRA Principles 2019

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

SanctionStrike Off
CostsGBP 6,583
Dishonesty foundNo

Mr Syms, a director and co-owner of Lee Syms Ltd (trading as Swain & Co), admitted three allegations relating to the improper retention and use of Legal Aid Agency Statutory Monthly Payments (containing client money for professional disbursements) to run the firm, causing a minimum client account shortage of £263,508.45 and ultimately leaving third-party suppliers owed over £647,000 when the firm went into administration in November 2020. He admitted recklessness (not dishonesty) in respect of allegations 1.1 and 1.3. The SRA withdrew its primary dishonesty allegations as disproportionate given the agreed sanction. The Tribunal, dealing with the matter on the papers by agreed outcome, found the admissions properly made, found lack of integrity, and ordered him struck off the Roll plus costs of £6,582.88. No express finding of dishonesty was made.

Duties found breached:

Aggravating factors:

  • Reckless conduct (admitted)
  • Respondent and firm benefited from use of client and public money
  • Misconduct continued over approximately 5 years
  • Conduct was deliberate
  • Client account shortage stood at £610,621.07 on 5 February 2019; shortage of £263,508.45 not replaced
  • Ought reasonably to have known unpaid disbursements were client money and their use was a material breach

Mitigating factors:

  • Cooperated with the SRA investigation
  • Made early admissions
  • Believed historical practices inherited from previous owner were acceptable (mitigation advanced by Respondent, not endorsed by SRA)

⚠ figures not found verbatim in the source were dropped: ["review_dishonesty_finding_cue_present"]

Codes & rules applied

Duties engaged

Documents

Source: https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/case/12500-2/