Michael John Harvey

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

Michael John Harvey, a Luton sole practitioner, became deeply involved in the affairs of the Imperial Consolidated Group and related individuals (Mr F, a bankrupt, and Mr B, a convicted fraudster), as well as high-value international banking and investment schemes including FBCL, City (UK), the A Trust matter, promissory notes (Rusaust) and the M2F managed fund. The Tribunal found 10 of 12 allegations substantiated, including allowing his client account to be used improperly as a mere conduit, acting in conflicts of interest, inadequate supervision of an unadmitted clerk (Mr DW) based 150 miles away at the client's offices, sharing/sending original records abroad, breaching undertakings, swearing/preparing untrue or misleading affidavits, and sending untrue letters and one suggesting an improper course of action. The Tribunal expressly found the Respondent had acted dishonestly under the Twinsectra/Royal Brunei test. It struck him off the Roll and ordered him to pay costs of £14,724.43. Two allegations (genuineness of promissory note undertaking and retention of £10,000 owed to Mr S) were not substantiated.

Duties found breached:

• Disclose adverse law to the court
• Proper basis for allegations
• Honesty
• No taking unfair advantage
• Not mislead third parties or opponents
• Uphold public trust in the profession
• No conflict between current clients
• Handle inadvertently received material
• No improper use of client money
• Supervise staff and delegated work
• No improper solicitation or touting

Aggravating factors:

• Previous appearance before the Tribunal in September 2000 (fined £4,000 for accounts and supervision breaches)
• Had received specific warning letter from Law Society in May 1988 regarding prime bank instrument fraud
• Ignored general Law Society warnings on bank instrument fraud and money laundering
• Findings adopted from High Court judgment of Patten J following contested intervention proceedings
• Lack of cooperation with the Law Society inflating costs
• Behaviour seriously damaged the reputation of the solicitors' profession

Mitigating factors:

• No complaints received from any investor
• Claims-free insurance history
• Letters of support from clients
• No established financial loss to investors (repaid by Imperial)
• Catastrophic personal and financial consequences from the intervention
• Some allegations (vi and xi) found not substantiated