I A V Pratchett, M Obeng & A Das

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

Three respondents connected to Pratchetts Solicitors, Peterborough. Following the First Respondent's slipshod 'sale' of his practice to the Second and Third Respondents (without checking identities, practising certificates or notifying the SRA), the firm's client account was exploited for fraudulent conveyancing transactions. The First Respondent was found grossly reckless (not dishonest) and in breach of the Code and Solicitors Accounts Rules, creating client-account shortfalls. He was suspended for 5 years with post-suspension conditions and ordered to pay £10,000 costs (not enforceable without leave). The Second Respondent (who had conduct of the fraudulent transactions and was already indefinitely suspended) was struck off and ordered to pay £10,000 costs. The Third Respondent, a former Registered Foreign Lawyer complicit in the misconduct and who failed to co-operate, was barred from restoration to the Register except by Tribunal order and ordered to pay £5,000 costs. Total costs assessed at £25,000. No dishonesty finding was made; conduct was characterised as gross recklessness and impairment of integrity.

Duties found breached:

• No improper communication with the court
• Uphold public trust in the profession
• Act in the client's best interests
• Keep client informed and respond promptly
• No conflict between current clients
• No improper use of client money
• Accounting records, reconciliation and reports
• Diligence and timeliness

Aggravating factors:

• First Respondent's second appearance before the Tribunal, having failed to learn from earlier sanction
• Lack of insight into his own misconduct
• Gross recklessness allowing client money to be placed at serious risk
• Second Respondent already indefinitely suspended and a serious threat to the profession's reputation
• Third Respondent disengaged from investigation once questions became searching

Mitigating factors:

• First Respondent not accused of and no finding of dishonesty; Tribunal believed he had been duped
• Ill health and difficult personal/financial circumstances
• Partial admissions of the SARs breaches
• Admitted as a solicitor late (age 60) with limited experience
• No longer practising and no intention to return