Marc Joseph Levy

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

Marc Joseph Levy, a solicitor practising at HL Law, faced allegations arising from two SRA forensic investigations. He admitted numerous breaches of the Solicitors Accounts Rules and Code of Conduct, including acting in conflict for sellers, buyers and lenders in back-to-back conveyancing transactions without informing lenders, using client account to provide banking facilities (including for his father's business SH and third parties), improper withdrawals and inter-client transfers, holding office money (profit costs) in client account across VAM 4 Costs, Ground Rents and SB ledgers to keep funds away from his bank, partner and HMRC, and failing to account for some £28,000 VAT. The only contested allegations were dishonesty (attached to allegations 2.2 and 2.3). Applying the Twinsectra test as interpreted in Bultitude, the Tribunal found the conduct objectively dishonest but was not satisfied to the criminal standard that the Respondent himself realised he was acting dishonestly, accepting the 'chaotic universe' explanation of rank incompetence; dishonesty was therefore NOT proved. Despite the absence of dishonesty, the Tribunal was appalled by the deliberate, repeated and widespread breaches continued after warnings, found a lack of integrity, and ordered the Respondent struck off the Roll. Costs (claimed at £89,235.49) were ordered subject to detailed assessment unless agreed, including investigation costs.

Duties found breached:

• Not mislead third parties or opponents
• Act in the client's best interests
• No conflict between current clients
• Segregate client money
• No improper use of client money
• Supervise staff and delegated work
• Firm governance, systems and compliance

Aggravating factors:

• Conduct was deliberate and repeated over a lengthy period
• Continued the misconduct after the first forensic investigation despite warnings from the SRA
• Failed to remedy practices despite assurances given to the SRA through his solicitors
• Put the public at risk
• Failure to account for substantial VAT and profit costs; use of client account as a safe haven
• Any insight was belated

Mitigating factors:

• Full admissions of all non-dishonesty allegations (made March 2014)
• No dishonesty proved
• No actual loss or shortfall to clients
• Previously good character with supportive testimonials
• Cooperated to bring records and returns up to date; rectified minor cash shortage

⚠ figures not found verbatim in the source were dropped: ["review_dishonesty_finding_cue_present"]