Skip to main content
discipline 4 October 2026
‹ Browse decisions

Decision record

Mark Ian Williams

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
BodySolicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT)
Professionsolicitor
Case number12626/2024
Date18/02/2025
OutcomeSuspend - Fixed Period

Allegation / charges

Breaches, Client Money, Code of Conduct for Solicitors, REL's & RFL's 2019, Lack of Integrity, Practice Framework Rules, Solicitors Accounts Rules 2019, SRA Principles 2011, SRA Principles 2019

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

SanctionSuspension
Suspension6 months
CostsGBP 5,000
Dishonesty foundNo

Mark Williams, a solicitor working as a consultant at Frame Smith & Co, was found to have held client money in his personal bank account, failed to return the balance to a client after there was no longer a proper reason to hold it, and acted in criminal proceedings for two clients without authorisation. He blurred the line between his regulated legal work and private counselling/mentoring work for offenders. He admitted all allegations. The Tribunal found no dishonesty but found total culpability and high harm, and concern about lack of insight. He was suspended for 6 months and ordered to pay £5,000 costs (reduced from claimed sum due to his very limited means).

Duties found breached:

Aggravating factors:

  • Total culpability and high level of harm
  • Lack of insight into the seriousness of the conduct
  • Client money placed at risk in a personal account; legal work conducted uninsured and unregulated
  • Previous disciplinary finding in 2015 (though given limited weight due to extenuating circumstances)

Mitigating factors:

  • No dishonesty
  • Genuine intention to help and support clients
  • Admitted all allegations and made sensible concessions
  • Apologised and introduced protocol document to prevent recurrence
  • 41 character references
  • Failings not the result of intentional wrongdoing
  • Very limited means

Codes & rules applied

Duties engaged

Documents

Source: https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/case/12626/