§ discipline
‹ Browse decisions

C H M Robson & Another

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
BodySolicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT)
Professionsolicitor
Case number10280/2009
Date01/01/2009
OutcomeFine, Strike off

Allegation / charges

Breaches, Failures, Solicitors' Accounts Rules, Others

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

SanctionStrike Off
FineGBP 7,500
CostsGBP 20,696
Dishonesty foundYes

Two solicitors of White Rose Solicitors faced disciplinary charges arising from an employee bookkeeper's theft of ~£935,000 from client account, accounts rules breaches, failure to deliver accountant's reports, and a breached undertaking. The Tribunal found the First Respondent (Robson) acted dishonestly by deliberately breaching an undertaking to Preferred Mortgages Ltd and diverting a £191,875 mortgage advance to a third party in return for a £10,000 fee, resulting in client loss. Applying Twinsectra and Bolton, with no exceptional circumstances, he was struck off and ordered to pay £15,521.65 costs. The alleged 'sham partnership' dishonesty against both was found not proved. The Second Respondent admitted numerous accounts/regulatory breaches and was fined £7,500 plus £5,173.88 costs.

Duties found breached:

Aggravating factors:

  • Dishonesty was serious, calculated and deliberate (First Respondent)
  • First Respondent charged a £10,000 'facilitation' fee to breach undertaking knowing it was wrong
  • Client (Preferred Mortgages Ltd) suffered actual loss
  • Failure to act against Mr Peach after learning of his prior convictions, enabling a further £37,789.89 theft

Mitigating factors:

  • Isolated one-off incident, not repeated
  • First Respondent was himself the victim of a fraud and funds were never recovered
  • Firm properly closed down without intervention; Respondents acted responsibly
  • Positive character references and evidence
  • Respondents relatively young with much to offer; financial hardship (IVA, possible bankruptcy)
  • First Respondent took a legal charge from Mr Peach to protect client funds

Duties engaged

Documents

Source: https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/case/10280/