Millard Decal Spence

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

Solicitor Millard Decal Spence (First Respondent) and an employed assistant solicitor (Second Respondent) were found by the SDT to have made dishonest, misleading representations to the SRA, including false claims that another solicitor (Ms Toussaint) had been supervising/attending matters. The First Respondent also practised uncertificated, without indemnity insurance, failed to keep proper accounts, failed to co-operate with the SRA and failed to pay an ARP sum. Dishonesty was expressly found against both Respondents under the Twinsectra test. The Tribunal found exceptional circumstances and imposed suspensions (3 years for the First Respondent, 4 months for the Second Respondent) plus £12,000 costs (£8,400/£3,600). On the SRA's appeal, the High Court quashed the First Respondent's suspension and struck him off the Roll.

Duties found breached:

• No improper communication with the court
• No taking unfair advantage
• Not mislead third parties or opponents
• Accounting records, reconciliation and reports
• No baseless or threatened misconduct report

Aggravating factors:

• Deliberate, conscious decision to mislead and lie to the regulator
• First Respondent asked Ms Toussaint to lie to support his false account
• First Respondent practised uncertificated despite being instructed by the SRA that he could not practise
• Practising without professional indemnity insurance exposing clients to risk

Mitigating factors:

• First Respondent under considerable personal and financial pressure at the time
• No personal profit; First Respondent ultimately lost his practice
• Open and frank evidence, accepting wrongdoing
• Previous good character and supportive references
• Second Respondent young, inexperienced, naive and less culpable, following the First Respondent's lead