James Swead; John Szepietowski

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

AAG Legal Services/Eldons Berkeley solicitors James Swead (First Respondent, director/COLP/COFA) and John Szepietowski (Second Respondent, director) were found to have caused or permitted £94,738.89 of Client A's client-account money to be used to settle the firm's liability to Mr Berman without authority (Allegations 1.1 and 2.1). Swead was additionally found to have improperly transferred a further £8,700 from client to office account (1.2), misled the court in winding-up proceedings about repayment of the Arbuthnot overdraft facility (1.3.1), and dishonestly failed to disclose material information (winding-up petition/financial difficulties) on a CBILS Funding Circle loan application (1.4). Allegation 1.3.2 (director's loan) was not proved. The Tribunal expressly found dishonesty against both Respondents (applying Ivey). Both were struck off. Swead ordered to pay £9,000 costs; Szepietowski £39,553.40 (of £94,581.50 claimed). Decision subject to appeal to the High Court.

Duties found breached:

• Not mislead the court
• Proper basis for allegations
• Non-discriminatory acceptance and cab-rank
• Handle inadvertently received material
• Report serious misconduct of others

Aggravating factors:

• Dishonesty a feature of every allegation proved against First Respondent, spanning 2017–2020 and not momentary
• High culpability; First Respondent exercised direct control as COLP/COFA
• Deliberate unauthorised use of substantial client money to settle firm's own liability
• Material harm to client and reputational harm to profession; abuse of position of trust
• Misconduct repeated over time and extended to dishonest conduct towards court and a commercial lender (First Respondent)
• Second Respondent denied conduct throughout, established only after contested findings; extremely experienced solicitor

Mitigating factors:

• Neither Respondent derived direct personal financial benefit
• First Respondent had unblemished regulatory record; Second Respondent effectively good character (one historic 2003 non-dishonesty finding)
• Both complied with practising certificate restrictions without difficulty
• Unusual, longstanding and complex relationship blurring firm/client interests affecting judgment (Allegations 1.1/1.2)
• COVID-19 pandemic pressures and financial difficulties (Allegations 1.3/1.4)
• Second Respondent's role limited, short-lived, not primary architect; cooperated with regulator; health episode during hearing
• Positive testimonial evidence for First Respondent

⚠ figures not found verbatim in the source were dropped: ["unverified_costs_amount=48553.4"]