Michael Pack

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

Two solicitor partners (First and Second Respondents) of Geoffrey Parker Bourne admitted strict-liability breaches of the Solicitors' Accounts Rules 1998 arising from a client account shortage of over £1 million linked to debtor overpayments held for IJ, which were misapplied through transfers and payments made largely by the firm's Finance Director (Third Respondent, Michael Pack). Allegation 1.2 (supervision failures under Rule 5.01 SCC) was admitted by and found proved against the First Respondent but found not proved against the Second Respondent, as the Tribunal was satisfied appropriate management arrangements had been in place and supervisory responsibility for the Finance Director had been delegated to the First Respondent. The Tribunal found no dishonesty or lack of integrity on the part of the solicitors, describing the Third Respondent's actions as a devious/manipulative fraud. The First Respondent was fined £3,000 and the Second £2,000. The Third Respondent, an unadmitted person who admitted allegation 2.1, was made subject to a Section 43 Order. Total costs of £54,000 were apportioned 30%/10%/60% (£16,200 / £5,400 / £32,400), not to be enforced without leave of the Tribunal.

Duties found breached:

• No improper communication with the court
• No conflict between current clients
• No improper use of client money
• Report serious misconduct of others
• No baseless or threatened misconduct report

Aggravating factors:

• The fraud involved a significant sum of money (client account shortage of over £1,002,278.51)
• Breaches of professional obligations under the SAR 1998 by the First and Second Respondents

Mitigating factors:

• Misconduct resulted from the deception/fraud of a third party (the Third Respondent Finance Director)
• First and Second Respondents had effective systems and procedures in place at the firm
• Full cooperation with the SRA
• Efforts made to make good the situation and replace the misapplied funds (albeit only very recently, via insurers)
• Impeccable character and testimonials; no dishonesty or lack of integrity on part of the solicitors
• Early admission of the SAR breaches