Steven Platts & Another

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

Before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, the First Respondent (a solicitor, principal of Sergeant & Collins) faced 20 allegations of accounts and conduct rule breaches, primarily arising from raising nine bills of £31,791.49 against dormant client balances without notifying clients, unjustified billing, overbilling probate estates, providing banking facilities, a £24,503.10 client account shortfall, misleading the SRA and insurers, and failing to comply with a Legal Ombudsman award. The original dishonesty allegation (1.21) was withdrawn with the Tribunal's permission; the Tribunal found lack of integrity but made no finding of dishonesty. All allegations were found proved (mostly admitted). The Tribunal imposed a £20,000 fine plus practising conditions restricting him from practising as a principal, holding client money or acting as COLP/COFA, and ordered £32,000 costs. The Third Respondent, an unadmitted clerk, had five allegations (sweeping residual balances, improper inter-ledger transfer, overbilling) found proved and was made subject to a section 43 order with £4,000 costs.

Duties found breached:

• No improper communication with the court
• Non-discriminatory acceptance and cab-rank
• Advise on alternatives, settlement and outcome
• Fair, reasonable and lawful fees
• No conflict between current clients
• Handle inadvertently received material
• Prompt accounting and return of money
• Account for interest on client money
• Orderly wind-down and contingency cover
• Not misrepresent regulated status

Aggravating factors:

• Calculated, deliberate and repeated conduct forming part of a general billing practice ('sweeping up')
• Nine cases of unjustified billing over a period of time; two sets of accounts qualified
• Lack of any robust controls to curtail breaches
• Firm took advantage of deceased clients and unincorporated working men's clubs
• Senior solicitor with 40 years' experience, higher rights of audience and judicial appointments who should have known of breaches
• Startling lack of insight; treated breaches as merely technical
• Lied to regulator about Mr LF's partnership status

Mitigating factors:

• Many bills generated by former partner Mr W or by the Third Respondent
• Considerable efforts to make good losses once uncovered (reversed all bills except SU Football Club)
• Previously unblemished career of 40 years
• Positive testimonials and community/judicial service
• Client monies largely repaid to client account