Rose Elizabeth Egarr & Andrew Walsh

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

The SDT found all nine allegations proved against the First Respondent, Rose Elizabeth Egarr, a solicitor admitted 1984 and owner of Arthur Smiths Solicitors, including that she paid £80,000-£100,000 of client account funds to a client (MM) who had no entitlement, caused a client account shortfall of at least £69,990, misled the SRA investigator, failed to keep proper accounts and reconciliations, breached PC conditions, failed to ensure a COLP/COFA, practised as an unauthorised sole practitioner and failed to cooperate. Dishonesty was expressly found (Twinsectra test) in respect of allegations 1.1 and 1.3. She was struck off and ordered to pay £22,760 costs. The Second Respondent, Andrew Walsh, an unadmitted accounts manager/COFA, admitted three allegations (carrying out improper client account withdrawals, failing to keep proper records, and failing to report misconduct); no dishonesty was alleged against him (only breach of integrity/Principle 2). As he already had a section 43 order, he was fined £8,000 and ordered to pay £5,690 costs.

Duties found breached:

• Advise objectively, not a mere conduit
• Non-discriminatory acceptance and cab-rank
• No improper use of client money
• Accounting records, reconciliation and reports
• Hold a current practising certificate
• Good faith and courtesy to colleagues
• Not misrepresent regulated status

Aggravating factors:

• Dishonesty alleged and proved (First Respondent)
• Misconduct deliberate and continued over a period of time
• Attempt to conceal wrongdoing by misleading the SRA
• Ought to have known conduct breached obligations to protect the public and profession
• Second Respondent had prior section 43 order and prior awareness of accounts rules issues

Mitigating factors:

• First Respondent: previously unblemished career; possibly deceived by the client MM
• Second Respondent: early and frank admissions and cooperation with the SRA
• Second Respondent: no personal gain beyond wages; inexperienced with inadequate training/supervision; ill health; worked in stressful pressured environment