Skip to main content
discipline 3 October 2026
‹ Browse decisions

Decision record

Derek John Leonard

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
BodySolicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT)
Professionsolicitor
Case number9896/2008
Date01/01/2008
OutcomeStrike off

Allegation / charges

Breaches, Client Money, Failures, Solicitors' Accounts Rules, Others

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

SanctionStrike Off
FineGBP 5,000
Dishonesty foundNo

The SDT found conduct unbefitting a solicitor proved against both Respondents. First Respondent Derek John Leonard was found to have committed numerous breaches of the Solicitors Accounts and Practice Rules, failed undertakings and failed to disclose his bankruptcy; the alleged dishonesty (allegation 19) was not proved as the Twinsectra test was not satisfied. Given his serious record (a prior two-year suspension) he was struck off. The Second Respondent, whose alleged dishonesty on his admission application was rejected (subjective limb of Twinsectra not met), was found to have facilitated an accounts breach, purported to practise in partnership, signed Certificates of Title blind and provided an inaccurate admission form; he was fined £5,000. Both were jointly and severally liable for costs (to be assessed), the Second Respondent's share capped at 35%.

Duties found breached:

Aggravating factors:

  • First Respondent had previously appeared before the Tribunal in 1994 and been suspended for two years on similar allegations
  • Widespread disregard for regulatory obligations by First Respondent
  • Transactions bore hallmarks of mortgage fraud

Mitigating factors:

  • No loss to clients and no complaints made against the Second Respondent
  • Second Respondent was inadequately supervised and naive; had since been admitted and undertaken proper training
  • No finding of dishonesty against either Respondent

⚠ figures not found verbatim in the source were dropped: ["review_dishonesty_finding_cue_present"]

Duties engaged

Documents

Source: https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/case/9896/