§ discipline
‹ Browse decisions

Michael Healey

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
BodySolicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT)
Professionsolicitor
Case number11578/2016
Date01/01/2016
OutcomeStrike off

Allegation / charges

Breaches, Failures, Solicitors' Accounts Rules

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

SanctionStrike Off
CostsGBP 12,153
Dishonesty foundYes

Michael Healey, a sole practitioner solicitor, was found to have misappropriated a minimum of £31,078.25 in client monies by paying them into office account and using them for personal and business expenses, misled two clients about the status of their settled claims, and falsely declared on his practising certificate renewal that he had never held client money. He also failed to maintain a client account, proper accounting systems and records, failed to remedy the shortfall, and failed to notify the SRA of serious financial difficulty. He admitted all allegations including dishonesty. The Tribunal proceeded in his absence (he was hospitalised) and found dishonesty proved applying the Twinsectra test. Finding no exceptional circumstances, the Tribunal struck him off the Roll and ordered costs of £12,152.72 (to be dealt with in his bankruptcy).

Duties found breached:

Aggravating factors:

  • Dishonesty proved
  • Conduct repeated over a 14-month period
  • Clients depended on him and he failed to be honest and account promptly
  • Used client monies for his own personal and business purposes
  • Knew actions were in material breach of obligations
  • Significant impact on clients directly affected and cost to Compensation Fund
  • Did not voluntarily notify regulator of breaches

Mitigating factors:

  • No previous disciplinary record
  • Demonstrated contrition and stated he was deeply sorry
  • Early admissions and co-operation during investigation
  • Acknowledged he should have wound up the Firm
  • Repaid one client (DM) in full
  • Financial difficulties partly attributable to delayed LAA criminal contract
  • No evidence of gambling addiction

Duties engaged

Documents

Source: https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/case/11578/