Skip to main content
discipline 4 October 2026
‹ Browse decisions

Decision record

Kimberley Bridge & John Charles McNabb & Tracy Stansfield & Nicola Roach

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
BodySolicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT)
Professionsolicitor
Case number11181/2013
Date01/01/2013
OutcomeFine, Reprimand, S.43 Order (clerks), Strike off

Allegation / charges

Breaches, Client Money, Failures, Solicitors' Accounts Rules, Others

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

SanctionStrike Off
CostsGBP 31,948
Dishonesty foundYes

SFN Solicitors was investigated by the SRA after a client account shortfall was reported. The First Respondent, Kimberley Bridge (managing partner), was found to have systematically misappropriated client money, fabricated an entire transaction (Mr & Mrs I), forged documents, and repeatedly lied to the investigating officer over eight months (including false claims about fires, asbestos and a stroke). The minimum cash shortage was £418,099.42. The Tribunal found her dishonest on multiple allegations and struck her off, ordering costs of £31,947.85 jointly and severally with the Fourth Respondent. The Fourth Respondent, Nicola Roach (an employee, the First Respondent's sister), was also found dishonest and made subject to a Section 43 order. The Second Respondent (senior partner) admitted accounts breaches and was fined £10,000, mitigated to £2,000 given his means, plus £8,420 costs (not enforceable without leave). The Third Respondent, who had left the firm on ill-health and self-reported, was reprimanded with £8,420 costs (not enforceable without leave).

Duties found breached:

Aggravating factors:

  • Premeditated and systematic conduct over a lengthy period
  • Presenting forged documents to the investigating officer
  • Repeated untruths and deceptions, including fabricating a transaction to cover up misconduct
  • Systematic 'teeming and lading' of client monies
  • Deceived fellow partners (Second and Third Respondents), causing them financial ruin
  • No engagement with the disciplinary process

Mitigating factors:

  • No previous disciplinary matters

Duties engaged

Documents

Source: https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/case/11181/