John McCormack and Martin David Alastair Bradshaw

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

Two partners of McCormack & Co faced allegations of conduct unbefitting a solicitor including accounts rules breaches, using client funds, transferring costs before bills, failing to provide client care/costs information, delayed post-completion work, repeated late/outstanding Accountant's Reports, failing to reply to the OSS, and a criminal conviction for misleading prices (50% undisclosed care-and-attention mark up). All allegations except the costs-information one were admitted; the Tribunal found that allegation proved as to new clients Mr and Mrs M. No express finding of dishonesty was made (the applicant stated dishonesty was not essential to the case). Given the number and seriousness of the breaches, the Second Respondent's prior 1989 disciplinary history, and the harm to public confidence, both Respondents were struck off the Roll and ordered to pay costs subject to detailed assessment.

Duties found breached:

• Proper basis for allegations
• Continuity and handover of representation
• Costs and fee transparency to client
• No conflict between current clients
• Handle inadvertently received material
• No improper use of client money
• Accounting records, reconciliation and reports

Aggravating factors:

• Second Respondent's prior appearance before the Tribunal in 1989 (suspended 6 months) for similar accounts and Accountant's Report failures
• Criminal conviction for misleading prices damaging the profession's reputation
• Respondents failed to recognise that the conviction damaged the profession, blaming clients
• Clients misled about a 50% care and attention mark up not disclosed at outset
• Transfers of funds before bills issued preventing client scrutiny
• Continued failure to file Accountant's Reports and reply to regulator

Mitigating factors:

• Respondents co-operated fully with the Investigation Officer and made no attempt to obstruct
• Client account shortage of £6,947.80 was replaced following inspection
• No dishonesty alleged as essential part of case; Respondents asserted no misappropriation
• Small firm with no full-time bookkeeper
• Both Respondents intended to leave practice (First Respondent retired; Second not to seek practising certificate); run-off insurance arranged
• Second Respondent's personal difficulties following firm closure