Kathleen Chadwick & 2 Others

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

The SDT found all allegations proved against three respondents arising from a Blackburn conveyancing firm. The First Respondent (sole/senior partner) committed seven SAR breaches and six SCC breaches, including teeming and lading to conceal a £100,000 client account shortfall caused by an overpayment to a non-client, providing banking facilities, and repeatedly failing to disclose material facts to lender clients in five conveyancing transactions. The Tribunal expressly noted dishonesty was not alleged but found his conduct at the most serious end and lacking integrity; he was struck off. The Second Respondent, junior partner liable only as a principal for SAR breaches after 1 March 2009 with no personal fault, was fined £5,000. The Third Respondent, the firm's bookkeeper, took £300 without authorisation and made improper transfers/invoices; she was made subject to a section 43 order. Costs of £28,000 assessed, apportioned £22,000 to the First Respondent and £6,000 to the Second; no costs against the Third Respondent.

Duties found breached:

• Accounting records, reconciliation and reports
• Act only on proper, lawful instructions
• Disclose material information to client
• Firm governance, systems and compliance
• Hold a current practising certificate
• No conflict between current clients
• No improper use of client money
• Not mislead third parties or opponents
• Not misrepresent regulated status
• Prompt accounting and return of money

Aggravating factors:

• Misconduct deliberate, calculated and repeated over 2008-2011
• Continued breaches even after SRA had drawn duties to lender clients to his attention in September 2010
• Teeming and lading exercise using unrelated clients' funds (over £82,000 of Ms BH) to conceal a £100,000 shortfall
• Provision of banking facilities to clients
• Raising of improper invoices to stay within overdraft limits
• First Respondent an experienced conveyancer with overall control of firm
• Attempted to blame the bookkeeper for breaches that were his responsibility
• Lack of genuine insight

Mitigating factors:

• No actual financial loss to clients ultimately (shortfall made good, Ms BH paid in full)
• Full admissions and cooperation with SRA
• Previous good character, no prior disciplinary findings
• Commissioned Beevers & Struthers report and took remedial steps
• Firm obtained Lexcel accreditation and applied for Conveyancing Quality Mark
• Second Respondent: junior, inexperienced partner only liable as principal after 1 March 2009 with no personal fault or knowledge