Jonathan Ippazio De Vita & Christopher John Platt & Emily Scott

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

Three solicitors at Quality Solicitors De Vita Platt faced allegations across three Rule statements. The Second Respondent (Platt) was found to have dishonestly drawn down client loan funds without permission, raised and signed inflated bills for work not done (overcharges of up to nearly 2000%), caused client account shortages, engaged in teeming and lading, misled clients, the Legal Ombudsman and the SRA, and instructed the trainee to falsify files. The First Respondent (De Vita), the COLP/COFA and training partner, was found dishonest in falsely certifying ID1 forms and lying to the Land Registry, and reckless as to signing false bills and causing shortages. The Third Respondent (Scott), a trainee, was found dishonest for falsifying Client L's file for the Legal Ombudsman under the Second Respondent's instruction, and lacking integrity in failing to promptly report misconduct. Several allegations (including some forgery allegations and some misleading-the-SRA allegations) were found not proved. All three were struck off the Roll. The Tribunal no exceptional circumstances despite health issues and the Third Respondent's difficult position. Total costs of £145,533.96: First and Second Respondents jointly and severally liable for £143,456.96; Third Respondent liable for £2,077.00 (1%).

Duties found breached:

• Honesty
• Integrity
• No taking unfair advantage
• Uphold public trust in the profession
• Act in the client's best interests
• Non-discriminatory acceptance and cab-rank
• No conflict between current clients
• No improper use of client money
• Supervise staff and delegated work
• Firm governance, systems and compliance
• Orderly wind-down and contingency cover
• Report serious misconduct of others

Aggravating factors:

• Dishonesty found against all three respondents
• Misconduct was deliberate, calculated, repeated and continued over a period of years
• Respondents took advantage of vulnerable clients (probate beneficiaries/executors); Second Respondent also exploited and bullied the junior Third Respondent
• Attempts to conceal wrongdoing, often by blaming others
• Breaches of positions of trust; First Respondent was COLP/COFA and training partner; Second Respondent instigated much of the misconduct
• Motivation of self-enrichment/increasing income by misappropriating client funds

Mitigating factors:

• No previous disciplinary findings for any respondent
• For Third Respondent: acted under pressure, bullying and manipulation by the Second Respondent; very junior (paralegal/trainee); voluntarily reported to SRA exposing her own misconduct; genuine insight; early admissions to factual basis; was on medication during final year of training