Alan Matthew Avetoom & Another

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

Solicitor sole practitioner faced numerous allegations of accounts rule breaches, failures to respond, practising without a certificate, providing inaccurate information to the SRA, non-disclosure of material facts to lender clients in sub-sale conveyancing, failure to honour undertakings, and insurance/reporting failures. The Tribunal found 18 allegations proved or admitted (some allegations not proved) but expressly stated none involved dishonesty, characterising his conduct as reckless. Given the breadth and seriousness, the Tribunal struck him off the Roll and ordered £35,500 costs (not enforceable without leave). The Second Respondent, a 'sleeping/token partner' liable for two accounts breaches, was reprimanded and ordered to pay £2,000 costs.

Duties found breached:

• No improper communication with the court
• Not mislead third parties or opponents
• Complaints procedure and handling
• No conflict between current clients
• No improper use of client money
• Accounting records, reconciliation and reports
• Hold a current practising certificate
• Self-report to the regulator
• Report serious misconduct of others
• Honour professional undertakings
• Truthful, non-misleading advertising
• Not misrepresent regulated status

Aggravating factors:

• Recklessness - not caring whether what he said was true, stating whatever would remove the problem
• Breaches spanned a wide range of his practice showing fall below standards of integrity, probity and trustworthiness
• Misled SRA to obtain a practising certificate and gave inaccurate statements about accounts
• Conduct exposed lender clients to risk

Mitigating factors:

• Previous good character with no prior disciplinary findings
• Relative youth
• Medical problems and personal/police pressures during the relevant period
• Replaced the client account shortfall of nearly £19,000 from his own funds
• Did not flee when intervention was anticipated and tried to deal with matters
• Took full responsibility and sought to absolve the Second Respondent
• ARP backdated insurance so no real consequence from that breach