Martin Keith Waters & Rodney William Noon

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

The SDT found both respondents' allegations largely proved. First Respondent Martin Keith Waters was found to have caused/allowed a suspended solicitor to act, caused a client account cash shortage of £384,469.57, failed to supervise and maintain systems, and failed to cooperate with the SRA; his conduct lacked integrity (Principle 2) but no dishonesty was found against him. Allegations 1.4, 1.5 and 1.7 (regarding a £10,000 payment) were dismissed for insufficient evidence. He was suspended for 6 months with 3 years of practice conditions and ordered to pay £15,000 costs. Second Respondent Rodney William Noon admitted practising while suspended and two dishonest acts (concealing his suspension from a client and misleading the SRA); the Tribunal found dishonesty proved and, absent exceptional circumstances, struck him off the Roll and ordered £6,000 costs.

Duties found breached:

• No abuse of process or coercive powers
• No improper communication with the court
• Not mislead third parties or opponents
• Handle inadvertently received material
• No improper use of client money
• Diligence and timeliness
• Report serious misconduct of others
• No baseless or threatened misconduct report

Aggravating factors:

• Second Respondent's proven dishonesty
• Second Respondent's previous disciplinary history (2012 financial penalty £9,000 plus costs £13,000; 2015 suspension and conditions)
• Second Respondent was an experienced solicitor of over 30 years directly in control
• First Respondent abdicated regulatory responsibilities as sole principal and COFA
• Harm caused to clients and to the reputation of the profession
• Conduct spanning extended periods; shortage not rectified until October 2019

Mitigating factors:

• First Respondent had no prior disciplinary record
• First Respondent had been the victim of a serious physical assault around the material time
• First Respondent eventually replaced the client account shortage in full at personal cost
• First Respondent made admissions and demonstrated insight
• Second Respondent admitted all allegations and was not financially motivated (paid counsel from own funds)
• Second Respondent apologised to client and profession

⚠ figures not found verbatim in the source were dropped: ["unverified_costs_amount=21000"]