Skip to main content
discipline 3 October 2026
‹ Browse decisions

Decision record

Andrew Roman Pena

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
BodySolicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT)
Professionsolicitor
Case number12142/2020
Date18/03/2021
OutcomeStrike off

Allegation / charges

Breaches, Client Money, Dishonesty, Failures, Lack of Integrity, Misappropriation of Client Account, Solicitors Accounts Rules 2011, SRA Principles 2011

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

SanctionStrike Off
CostsGBP 10,000
Dishonesty foundYes

Andrew Roman Pena, a director and major shareholder of Cubism Limited, admitted dishonestly creating invoices that did not reflect work done and dishonestly transferring at least £265,128.60 of client money to the firm's office account to meet expenses as the firm faced financial collapse. He also obtained a £100,000 loan from a close family friend without disclosing the client account issues or ensuring she obtained independent advice. The Tribunal, dealing with the matter on the papers via an agreed outcome, found the misconduct to be of the utmost seriousness with an express finding of dishonesty and, absent exceptional circumstances, ordered that he be struck off the Roll and pay agreed costs of £10,000. The misused client funds were repaid in full by other directors and insurers.

Duties found breached:

Aggravating factors:

  • Dishonest conduct of the utmost seriousness
  • Misconduct over a minimum period of nine months
  • Breach of position of trust to both Firm and clients
  • Knew he was breaching the Accounts Rules
  • Substantial sum improperly transferred (£265,128.60)

Mitigating factors:

  • Self-reported misconduct to Firm's COLP
  • Open and cooperative once reported
  • Expressed remorse and shame
  • Misused client money replaced in full (by other directors/insurers)
  • Previously unblemished 27-year career with no prior complaints
  • Admitted all allegations including dishonesty

Codes & rules applied

Duties engaged

Documents

Source: https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/case/12142-2/