Robert Andrew Schofield

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

Two solicitors at a small niche firm (Clinch, sole principal; Schofield, consultant) participated in a purported multi-million dollar loan scheme, allowing the firm's client account to be used as a banking facility and providing undertakings to third-party borrowers that their 5% deposits would only be used to procure insurance guarantees. Despite repeated and forceful warnings from the firm's bank that the transaction was fraudulent, and non-receipt of any loan funds, they paid out deposit monies (including to a Russian account and an Italian vineyard account 'AAV') to unknown third parties. The Tribunal found breaches of the SRA Accounts Rules and Code of Conduct admitted, and found lack of integrity and express dishonesty proved beyond reasonable doubt from 29 August 2012 (Second Respondent dishonest throughout regarding payments as he knew the basis on which funds were held). Both were struck off. Costs of £40,000 were ordered jointly and severally in case 11292-2014, with an additional £13,562.88 ordered against Schofield alone in related case 11322-2014.

Duties found breached:

• No conflict between current clients
• No improper use of client money
• Prompt accounting and return of money
• AML and crime-prevention compliance
• Good faith and courtesy to colleagues

Aggravating factors:

• Express findings of dishonesty (both objective and subjective Twinsectra limbs)
• Repeated warnings from the firm's bank that the scheme was fraudulent were ignored
• Payments continued to be made despite no loan funds ever being received
• Second Respondent knew client SI had been struck off as a Chartered Accountant for fraud and failed to disclose this
• Second Respondent had a previous disciplinary finding (2013) and concurrent proceedings (11322-2014) both involving breach of undertakings
• Vulnerable third-party borrowers lost deposited monies

Mitigating factors:

• First Respondent had a hitherto exemplary/clean disciplinary record
• Character references submitted for First Respondent
• Respondents were themselves misled/hoodwinked by plausible fraudster clients (SI and IM)
• Respondents did not personally receive or misappropriate the loan funds; fees taken were modest (approx £11,700)