Duncan Neil Gibbins & Matthew Roy Edmund Dean & Nicola Klimkowski

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

Three solicitors who were directors of Rehab4Life Ltd (trading as Lindsays) obtained over £3.1 million from the Axiom Legal Financing Fund under a Litigation Funding Agreement (LFA) that restricted use of funds to 'Eligible Legal Expenses' (disbursements). The Tribunal found the LFA was the entire agreement (rejecting the Respondents' claim that it had been orally varied to permit use as working capital/practice funding), and that the Respondents knowingly signed a contract intending not to comply with its key terms, misused the funds for general overheads and Related Entities, failed to pay client money into client account, were on notice of serious risk of fraud by the investment manager (Tangerine/DR), failed to make enquiries, and failed to notify the SRA of serious financial difficulty. The First Respondent additionally gave false/misleading information to the SRA. The Tribunal made express findings of dishonesty (applying Twinsectra) in relation to allegations 1.1, 1.3 and 1.5, but did not find dishonesty in allegations 1.2(a) and 1.2(b). All three were struck off. Costs of £129,000 were summarily assessed, split equally at £43,000 each, enforceable without leave.

Duties found breached:

• Proper basis for allegations
• No taking unfair advantage
• Uphold public trust in the profession
• Non-discriminatory acceptance and cab-rank
• No improper use of client money
• Firm governance, systems and compliance
• Good faith and courtesy to colleagues
• Not misrepresent regulated status

Aggravating factors:

• Proven dishonesty which was deliberate, calculated and repeated
• Misconduct continued over a significant period and was intended to continue (October LFA documents signed)
• Breach of trust by accepting and misusing client monies in disregard of accounts rules
• Over £3 million drawn down and misused; Fund lost in excess of £5 million; nothing repaid
• Very little insight into misconduct; failure to co-operate and no admissions

Mitigating factors:

• Previous unblemished record / no prior disciplinary findings
• Positive character references
• Respondents not primarily motivated by personal gain (money used to grow business)
• Respondents may have been naive and taken in by others (Schools, Barnett, DR) who were themselves found dishonest
• First and Second Respondents had ceased to practise and did not intend to practise again