Endy Okoye & David Laryea

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

Both partners of Marshall & Mason Solicitors were found to have committed numerous, serious and widespread breaches of the Solicitors Accounts Rules and the Code, including failing to keep proper accounts, improper client account transfers, overdrawing client accounts, over-charging the Crown Court (misleading the Taxing Officer), charging improper disbursements, failing to disclose material facts to mortgagee lenders, and failing to co-operate with the SRA. The Second Respondent alone was found to have held himself out as a practising solicitor in an IVA proposal without a practising certificate, in breach of the integrity requirement of Rule 1. The Tribunal expressly noted dishonesty was not alleged in relation to the accounts; no express finding of dishonesty was made. Both Respondents were struck off and made jointly and severally liable for costs of £40,000 (reduced from the £60,171.27 sought). Proceedings were held in the Respondents' absence.

Duties found breached:

• Not mislead the court
• Disclose material information to client
• Advise on alternatives, settlement and outcome
• No improper use of client money
• Prompt accounting and return of money
• Accounting records, reconciliation and reports
• Diligence and timeliness
• No baseless or threatened misconduct report

Aggravating factors:

• Breaches were serious, widespread and continued over a significant period
• Significant mismanagement of client account and failure to exercise stewardship of client money
• Second Respondent misled the Court's Taxing Officer over-charging in Mr M's matter
• Second Respondent produced documents to the Tribunal which did not appear to be genuine
• Failure to co-operate with the SRA and failure to comply with the Adjudicator's decision

Mitigating factors:

• Second Respondent contended he had not been involved in the conveyancing transactions and accepted liability only as a partner
• Some admissions and explanations offered by the Second Respondent
• No previous disciplinary sanctions