Roberts, Taylor and Excell-Thomas

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

Three solicitors from the firm Roberts & Co faced disciplinary proceedings. The First Respondent, Barry Roberts, was found dishonest for falsifying client account entries, running chaotic accounts, misleading his client Mr B, acting under conflicts of interest, operating a sham partnership to access lending panels, breaching s.41 by employing a struck-off clerk and a bankrupt suspended solicitor, and breaching a solicitor's undertaking; he was struck off and ordered to pay £5,325.95 legal costs plus £1,788.10 investigation accountant costs. The Second Respondent, Raymond Taylor, was found (without dishonesty) to have breached an undertaking he signed as a partner and to have allowed himself to be held out as a partner in a sham partnership; he was found careless to the point of recklessness, prohibited from restoration to the Roll, and ordered to pay £2,662.98 costs. The Third Respondent, Christopher Excell-Thomas, was found to have practised uncertificated after his practising certificate was automatically suspended on bankruptcy; he received an indefinite suspension and was ordered to pay £887.66 costs.

Duties found breached:

• No improper communication with the court
• No taking unfair advantage
• Not mislead third parties or opponents
• No own-interest conflict
• No conflict between current clients
• Accounting records, reconciliation and reports
• Account for interest on client money
• Honour professional undertakings
• No improper fee-sharing or partnership

Aggravating factors:

• First Respondent's conduct deliberate and calculating; sham partnership admittedly used to get onto bank/building society panels
• Client funds placed in jeopardy with Compensation Fund claims
• Third party (supervisor of voluntary arrangements) prejudiced by breach of undertaking
• Prior disciplinary history of Second Respondent (1993 and 1996 findings including misuse of client funds)
• Prior disciplinary history of Third Respondent (1979 and 1998 findings)
• First and Third Respondents provided no explanation or mitigation and did not attend

Mitigating factors:

• Second Respondent made a £30,000 payment in partial reparation for the breached undertaking
• Second Respondent cooperated, made representations and appeared (via counsel)
• Second Respondent's breaches found to be careless/reckless rather than dishonest
• Second Respondent no longer intended to practise

⚠ figures not found verbatim in the source were dropped: ["unverified_costs_amount=10664.69"]