H S Fernando & P Rajoo

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

Two solicitors faced SDT proceedings arising from Forensic Investigation reports into Fernando & Co. Both were found to have failed to maintain proper books of account and to have charged improper disbursements (telegraphic transfer fees and arbitrary admin/incidentals charges) containing hidden profit. The Second Respondent (Rajoo) was additionally found to have retained non-client (VAT) money in client account, failed to disclose property discounts to mortgagee clients, and—most seriously—to have dishonestly fabricated a letter and post journal entry to mislead the Forensic Investigators. Applying the Twinsectra test, the Tribunal was sure he was dishonest and struck him off, ordering £2,500 costs. The First Respondent (Fernando), who withdrew client money without written instructions and breached client care/costs rules, had retired abroad and failed to engage; he was suspended indefinitely and ordered to pay £10,714 costs. One allegation against Fernando (failure to respond to SRA) was allowed to lie on the file.

Duties found breached:

• Full disclosure on ex parte applications
• No improper communication with the court
• Handle inadvertently received material
• No improper use of client money
• Prompt accounting and return of money
• Accounting records, reconciliation and reports

Aggravating factors:

• Lying to the profession's regulator during an investigation
• Risk that under stress the Second Respondent might act similarly again
• First Respondent's failure to engage in the proceedings
• 'Sharp' practices containing hidden profit on disbursements

Mitigating factors:

• Second Respondent recently qualified (2005) and only a junior partner for a couple of months at time of inspection
• Poor training and bad example set by senior partner
• Dishonest act was momentary, unpremeditated and committed under stress
• Second Respondent admitted his conduct when confronted
• Second Respondent complied with practising certificate conditions and continued to practise
• No identified financial loss to clients