Maxine Barnes

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

Maxine Barnes, sole director/COLP/COFA of Furse Sanders Ltd, faced four allegations. Allegation 1: she continued to act and charge Client A under a Lasting Power of Attorney knowing it had been revoked - the Tribunal found this dishonest (expressly applying the Ivey test) and in breach of Principles 2, 6 and 10. Allegation 2: she withdrew client money for excessive/unfair costs without proper written notification to Client A (breaching SAR Rules 17.2, 20.1, 20.3, Principles 2,4,6,10 and Outcomes 1.12/1.13). Allegation 3: in the estate of JD she raised a bill of £40,315.80 and withdrew ~£37,915.80 exceeding the agreed fixed fee of £2,000+VAT (breaching SAR Rules 6.1,7.1,7.2,20.1 and Principles 2,4,6,10; not Rule 20.3). Allegation 4: she made improper transfers of £608,434.43 of client money to an unregulated entity (FLSL) run by her husband without client consent (breaching SAR Rules 6.1,14.1,20.1 and Principles 2,4,6,10; not Rules 7.1,7.2,13.1). All allegations were found proved, including dishonesty on allegation 1. Given the dishonesty and absence of exceptional circumstances, the Tribunal struck her off the Roll and ordered costs of £20,000 (reduced from £31,281.35 for limited means). On appeal, the High Court substituted 'No order for costs'.

Duties found breached:

• No improper communication with the court
• Integrity
• Uphold public trust in the profession
• Act in the client's best interests
• No improper use of client money
• Competence
• Not misrepresent regulated status

Aggravating factors:

• Proven dishonesty
• Motivated by financial gain
• Deliberate, calculated and repeated conduct over a period of time
• Breach of trust of an elderly and vulnerable client (Client A)
• Sole control and responsibility for the misconduct as Principal/COLP/COFA
• Dismissive of staff concerns and proceeded to take costs anyway
• Sought to place blame on the practice manager

Mitigating factors:

• Previously unblemished record
• Cooperated with the SRA investigation
• Limited insight displayed