Marie Bernadette Smith Robinson & Humaira Rasheed

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

Ms Robinson, a sole principal solicitor, admitted conduct unbefitting a solicitor comprising failure to keep proper books of account, allowing a trainee to operate the client account, and failing to adequately supervise and train her trainee (Ms Rasheed). A Law Society inspection revealed poorly maintained accounts and that client monies had been dealt with irregularly, including £300 from client Mr L paid into a personal account. The two respondents gave conflicting evidence and the Tribunal could not resolve which version was true without corroboration but made findings on undisputed matters. There was no express finding of dishonesty; the Tribunal noted the First Respondent's history of ill health and alcohol problems and found her not fit to practise, choosing indefinite suspension rather than strike-off. She was ordered to pay costs of £5,983.64. The Second Respondent, a trainee, was made subject to a Section 43 order to protect the public and control her future employment, and ordered to pay costs of £2,991.82.

Duties found breached:

• No conflict between current clients
• Prompt accounting and return of money
• Accounting records, reconciliation and reports
• Competence
• Supervise staff and delegated work

Aggravating factors:

• Failure to close the firm or act when discovering the firm had been set up and documents completed without her knowledge
• Backdating appraisal documents after the investigation
• Allowing a trainee onto the client account mandate
• Second Respondent signed documents in the First Respondent's name and gave inconsistent evidence, being aware of the First Respondent's vulnerability

Mitigating factors:

• First Respondent's history of ill health and alcohol-related problems
• First Respondent took no drawings and gained no benefit from the practice
• First Respondent remedied the client account mandate breach promptly once identified
• First Respondent admitted the allegations
• Second Respondent was a trainee with limited knowledge and was in part a victim of circumstances