Richard Mallett & Sharon Mallett

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

Richard and Sharon Mallett, directors of Malletts Solicitors Ltd, faced multiple allegations arising from the collapse of their firm which owed over £3.1m including £1m to Loan Note investors. The Tribunal found both Respondents dishonestly misused Loan Note monies (restricted under Clause 4 to business development/LEI product) to prop up the failing firm and pay its liabilities. The First Respondent was also found dishonest in taking client loans without ensuring independent legal advice (own-interest conflict) and in allowing the firm's PII cover to be misrepresented as security for loans. The Second Respondent was found to have acted without integrity and recklessly (but not dishonestly) in completing a false Defence, and lacked integrity in failing to honour an undertaking and respond to the SRA. Allegations 1.3 and 1.4 (false statements to investors Kashdan and Magee) were dismissed as the witness recollection was unreliable. A preliminary application to stay for abuse of process/delay was refused, though the Tribunal accepted an approximately six-month unreasonable delay and Article 6 breach. Both were struck off; no exceptional circumstances found for the Second Respondent applying SRA v James. Costs of £140,000 total were apportioned 60/40 (£84,000 / £56,000).

Duties found breached:

• Proper basis for allegations
• No improper communication with the court
• Prosecutorial duty of disclosure
• No conflict between current clients
• No improper use of client money
• Prompt accounting and return of money
• Honour professional undertakings

Aggravating factors:

• Proven dishonesty
• Misconduct deliberate, calculated and repeated over a period of time
• Breach of trust placed in them by investors and clients
• Immense harm caused to investors and Mr Smith who lost significant sums (Mr Dodman lost life savings)
• Significant harm to reputation of the profession
• Experienced solicitors

Mitigating factors:

• No previous adverse disciplinary findings for either Respondent
• Second Respondent's difficult personal and health circumstances and workplace pressures (considered but not amounting to exceptional circumstances)
• Second Respondent had secondary role and made a number of admissions
• Positive references