Andrew Lindsay & Marina Frankel

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

Andrew Lindsay, 95% owner and managing/finance director of Tandem Law, caused the firm to accept and misuse £5,920,225 of Axiom litigation-funding monies contrary to the funding agreement, failed to pay client money into client account, assisted investment managers despite notice of possible fraud, made false representations on the funding application, improperly transferred £2m of Signey funds and £1.7m to City Equities to put it beyond receivers' reach, proposed an unlawful co-ownership arrangement with non-solicitors, instructed false answers, misled the SRA and failed to co-operate. The Tribunal found dishonesty proved (Ivey test) on allegations 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.8, 1.9, 1.10, 1.11 and 1.12, and struck him off, ordering costs of £108,371.65. Marina Frankel, 5% owner and HR director, was found (without dishonesty, but with lack of integrity) to have breached the Accounts Rules, failed to make proper inquiries on the Signey APA, carried out an unlawful redundancy exercise, failed to co-operate with the SRA and abrogated her directorial responsibilities; she was indefinitely suspended and ordered to pay costs of £42,056.60.

Duties found breached:

• Integrity
• Professional independence
• Uphold public trust in the profession
• Act in the client's best interests
• Non-discriminatory acceptance and cab-rank
• No improper use of client money
• Cooperate openly with regulators
• Not misrepresent regulated status

Aggravating factors:

• Dishonesty alleged and proved (First Respondent)
• Misconduct deliberate, calculated and repeated over a period of time
• Concealment of wrongdoing and misleading the regulator
• Took advantage of the more junior partner's blind faith
• Previous disciplinary finding against First Respondent (2005/2006)
• Significant harm to Axiom investors, clients and the profession's reputation
• Continued/repeated misconduct by Second Respondent (Allegations 2.1, 2.4, 2.5)

Mitigating factors:

• Second Respondent: only three years' post-qualification experience
• Second Respondent was bullied, lied to and manipulated by the First Respondent
• Second Respondent had a previously unblemished career
• First Respondent's health and family circumstances (personal mitigation, not amounting to exceptional circumstances)