Richard Predko

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

Richard Predko, a sole practitioner admitted in 1971, faced seven allegations following a Law Society Investigation Accountant's inspection. The investigation revealed a £26,962 client account shortage in the estate of Miss HS, understatement of that estate's value to the Probate Division (gross stated £14,534 versus actual minimum £60,576), numerous unauthorised loans between clients and to the respondent himself (disguised by treating himself as a client in his books), and several purchases of clients' properties (Mr/Mrs K, Mr G) financed by client loans where his interests conflicted with clients'. The applicant expressly made no allegation of dishonesty, and the Tribunal found the respondent acted recklessly (not dishonestly) in misleading the Probate court. The Tribunal found all allegations substantiated, concluding he had been feathering his own and his family's nest at clients' expense. He was struck off the Roll and ordered to pay costs of £7,600.

Duties found breached:

• Not mislead the court
• No own-interest conflict
• No conflict between current clients
• No improper use of client money
• Accounting records, reconciliation and reports
• No improper solicitation or touting

Aggravating factors:

• Cumulative picture of intermingling personal affairs with clients' funds over a long period (1973-1992)
• Treated himself as a client/another named client in accounting records to disguise his own borrowings
• Acted in multiple cases involving conflicts of interest, including drawing a will leaving himself/family a considerable sum
• Took 'profits' of £24,872.38 from the sale of a client's (Mrs K) property
• Tribunal found his attitude wholly unacceptable; 'feathering his own and his family's nest at the expense of clients'
• Breaches occurred against a background of apparently Unqualified Accountants' Reports
• Previous Tribunal finding (31 October 1995) of conflict of interest and other misconduct

Mitigating factors:

• Applicant made no allegation of dishonesty; respondent not found dishonest
• Respondent replaced the shortage on client account and rectified overpayment to daughters
• No client or third party suffered loss; no claims on the Compensation Fund
• Some clients had taken independent legal advice / provided authority
• Difficult background (refugee childhood, limited education, self-made career)
• Testimonial letter in support; described in earlier proceedings as competent, honest and honourable
• Undertook pro bono work; family man with dependants