Roberts, Taylor and Excell-Thomas

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

Disciplinary proceedings against three solicitors at Roberts & Co. The First Respondent (Roberts) was found to have been dishonest: he falsified client account entries, kept chaotic accounts that prevented calculation of client liabilities, misused client funds, misled client Mr B, acted in conflicts of interest, breached an undertaking, ran a sham partnership (admittedly to access lending panels) and breached Section 41. He was struck off and ordered to pay £5,325.95 legal costs plus £1,788.10 investigation accountant costs. The Second Respondent (Taylor) was found to have breached an undertaking he signed as a 'partner' and to have allowed himself to be held out as a partner in a sham partnership; the Tribunal made NO finding of dishonesty but found him careless to the point of recklessness. He was prohibited from restoration to the Roll and ordered to pay £2,662.98 costs. The Third Respondent (Excell-Thomas) was found to have practised uncertificated after his bankruptcy suspended his practising certificate; he was indefinitely suspended and ordered to pay £887.66 costs.

Duties found breached:

• No improper communication with the court
• No taking unfair advantage
• No own-interest conflict
• No conflict between current clients
• Handle inadvertently received material
• No improper use of client money
• Accounting records, reconciliation and reports
• Account for interest on client money
• Diligence and timeliness
• Honour professional undertakings
• No improper fee-sharing or partnership

Aggravating factors:

• First Respondent provided no explanation or mitigation and failed to respond to allegations
• Conduct at the most serious end of the scale with Compensation Fund claims
• Sham partnership created to obtain bank/building society panel membership
• Second Respondent had previous appearances before the Tribunal (1993 and 1996)
• Third Respondent's third appearance before the Tribunal (1979, 1998)

Mitigating factors:

• Second Respondent cooperated and made representations
• Second Respondent paid £30,000 in reparation for the breach of undertaking
• Second Respondent's name no longer on the Roll and he did not intend to practise again
• Clients less prejudiced by Second Respondent than by First Respondent

⚠ figures not found verbatim in the source were dropped: ["unverified_costs_amount=10664.69"]