Robert Scott

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

The SRA brought proceedings against three respondents arising from API Solicitors, a high-volume personal injury firm. The First Respondent (the sole solicitor/principal) admitted failure to supervise and was found to have improperly received commissions (ATE insurance payments and doctors' payments) channelled through his wife's interest in associated entities RST and CW without accounting to clients. The partnership allegation against him was not proved. The Third Respondent (Robert Scott, unqualified practice manager) was found to have caused payments for false ATE policies and to have received commissions; although the Tribunal found his conduct dishonest by objective standards, the subjective limb of the Twinsectra test was not satisfied, so dishonesty was NOT found and allegation 2.4 was dismissed. The Second Respondent had earlier settled via a Regulatory Settlement Agreement. Sanction: First Respondent suspended 12 months; Third Respondent made subject to a section 43 order. Costs were summarily assessed at a total of £39,000: First Respondent ordered to pay £15,000 (not enforceable without leave), Third Respondent £12,000, with the Second Respondent having agreed £12,000 under the RSA.

Duties found breached:

• No improper use of client money
• Prompt accounting and return of money
• Supervise staff and delegated work
• Not misrepresent regulated status

Aggravating factors:

• First Respondent turned a blind eye to the firm invoicing for non-existent insurance policies
• Misconduct occurred over a period of years
• Substantial harm: insurers paid hundreds of thousands of pounds for non-existent ATE policies (around 832 cases, c.£335,000)
• Setting up entities (RST/CW) deliberately designed to circumvent the rules on commission
• First Respondent showed a complete lack of insight regarding taking commissions

Mitigating factors:

• First Respondent young and inexperienced with no experience of managing a business or practice
• Sought guidance from the Law Society on the firm's structure
• Losses ultimately made good (though only after aggrieved parties took proceedings)
• First Respondent admitted the failure to supervise from the outset
• First Respondent had paid a heavy price (costs of c.£289,000, loss of livelihood) and suffered clinical depression
• Third Respondent reported his omissions to superiors and acted on the First Respondent's instructions; offered never to work in a law firm again

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