Teacher Stern LLP; Claire Rollo; Sacha Rifkin

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

The SRA alleged that Teacher Stern LLP and two of its partners (Claire Rollo and Sacha Rifkin) breached Rule 14.5 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011 and various Principles by causing or allowing payments from the firm's client account not connected to underlying transactions (providing banking facilities through client account), relating to clients A and B between 2014 and 2016. Recklessness was alleged against Rollo as an aggravating feature. The Tribunal found the payments were connected to underlying legal transactions, the scope of Rule 14.5 was unclear at the relevant time, and the SRA's case was 'accusation without evidence' that effectively reversed the burden of proof. All allegations, including recklessness, were dismissed. The Tribunal made an adverse costs order against the SRA (subject to detailed assessment) for the limited period of the substantive hearing where its conduct (multiple confusing versions of the Rule 12 Statement, unclear allegations, persisting despite weaknesses) was characterised as a 'shambles'. No interim payment was ordered. Note: The SRA's own costs (not claimed) were stated as GBP 67,718.20; the Second Respondent claimed GBP 189,141 and the Third Respondent claimed GBP 119,173.80, but the actual costs ordered were left to detailed assessment.note: the JSON requires the array of breaches found; none were found so empty. The email of 17 January 2014 ('like being a bank for all our clients') relied on by the SRA was found by the Tribunal to have no probative value, being merely an expression of frustration at administrative burden.