John McCormack and Martin David Alastair Bradshaw

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

Two partners of McCormack & Co faced allegations of conduct unbefitting a solicitor including accounts breaches, transfers from client account before bills issued causing a £6,947.80 shortage, failure to provide client care/costs information, failure/delay in post-completion matters, late and outstanding Accountant's Reports, failure to reply to the OSS, and a Consumer Protection Act conviction for misleading prices (undisclosed 50% care and attention mark-up). All allegations were admitted except allegation (v), which the Tribunal found proved against Mr and Mrs M. Dishonesty was expressly stated not to be an essential part of the case and no finding of dishonesty was made. Given the number and seriousness of breaches and undermining of public confidence, both Respondents were struck off the Roll and ordered to pay costs subject to detailed assessment.

Duties found breached:

• Proper basis for allegations
• Costs and fee transparency to client
• No conflict between current clients
• Handle inadvertently received material
• No improper use of client money
• Prompt accounting and return of money
• Accounting records, reconciliation and reports

Aggravating factors:

• Second Respondent's previous appearance before the Tribunal in 1989 (suspended 6 months for similar accounts and practising certificate failings)
• Criminal conviction for misleading prices, fined £1,000 plus costs at Brent Magistrates Court
• Respondents failed to recognise that conviction damaged the profession and blamed the clients
• One Accountant's Report remained outstanding at time of hearing
• Charging undisclosed care and attention mark-up; clients misled about charges
• Continued failure to reply to regulator correspondence

Mitigating factors:

• No misappropriation or losses found; client account shortage replaced
• Respondents co-operated fully with the Investigation Officer and made no attempt to obstruct
• Run off insurance of £47,000 arranged
• First Respondent had retired; Second Respondent did not intend to apply for a practising certificate again
• First Respondent had eyesight difficulties; Second Respondent had personal difficulties after firm closure