Sarah Joanne Crompton

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

First Respondent, a sole practitioner admitted in 2002, admitted four allegations: failure to supervise staff (notably Mr H, a suspended barrister who misappropriated client funds, and the Second Respondent who conducted suspicious back-to-back conveyancing), failure to act in the best interests of lender client TMB, providing a misleading statement in a probate/will matter, and failing to provide material information on his PII application. The Tribunal found these proved and found he had not discharged his duties with sufficient probity, but made no express finding of dishonesty. He was suspended for 12 months and ordered to pay £20,000 costs (not enforceable without Tribunal permission given his means). His appeal was dismissed. The Second Respondent (an unadmitted employee) was made subject to a s.43 order and ordered to pay £16,000 costs.

Duties found breached:

• Not mislead third parties or opponents
• Act in the client's best interests
• Handle inadvertently received material
• Supervise staff and delegated work

Aggravating factors:

• Appointed Mr H (a non-practising barrister who had misappropriated client monies) without any background checks
• Failed to terminate Mr H even after discovering his suspension, allowing him to continue dealing with vulnerable clients
• Hired the Second Respondent without checking her employment history, which would have revealed her dismissal for misconduct
• Signed Certificates of Title without checking files; lenders not informed of material facts
• Provided a misleading statement in a probate/will dispute with potentially serious consequences
• Failed to disclose pending SRA investigation on PII proposal form, placing insurers at risk
• Cavalier manner and lamentable dereliction of duty; currently a partner in another practice without proper control

Mitigating factors:

• Self-reported the matter of Mr H to the SRA and police
• Co-operated with SRA and police investigations and helped victims; monies repaid to clients
• Suffered stress (supported by medical report)
• Provided a positive character reference
• Took steps to improve supervision and management of his firm; satisfactory SRA monitoring visit
• Apologised and expressed shame