§ discipline
‹ Browse decisions

Michael Pack

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
BodySolicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT)
Professionsolicitor
Case number11080/2012
Date01/01/2012
OutcomeFine, S.43 Order (clerks)

Allegation / charges

Breaches, Client Money, Failures, Others, Solicitors' Accounts Rules

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

SanctionFine
FineGBP 5,000
CostsGBP 54,000
Dishonesty foundNo

Two partners of Geoffrey Parker Bourne admitted SAR 1998 breaches (Rules 32, 22, 7) arising from a £1m+ client account shortage caused largely by the firm's Finance Director (Third Respondent, Michael Pack) making unauthorised client-to-office transfers via manufactured bills. The Tribunal found the First Respondent also breached Rule 5.01 SCC 2007 (failure to supervise the Finance Director), but found this not proved against the Second Respondent (a salaried, fee-earning partner). The Third Respondent admitted the Section 43 allegation. The Tribunal expressly stated the solicitors acted with integrity, probity and trustworthiness; the Third Respondent's conduct was described as a devious and manipulative fraud, but dishonesty was not a pleaded/adjudicated allegation against any respondent. Sanctions: First Respondent fined £3,000, Second Respondent fined £2,000, Third Respondent subject to a Section 43 order. Total costs of £54,000 apportioned 30%/10%/60% (£16,200/£5,400/£32,400), not to be enforced without leave.

Duties found breached:

Aggravating factors:

  • The fraud involved a significant sum of money (cash shortage of over £1,002,278)
  • Breaches of professional obligations under the SAR 1998 by the First and Second Respondents

Mitigating factors:

  • Misconduct resulted from the deception/fraud perpetrated by the Third Respondent, a trusted senior employee
  • Effective systems and procedures were in place at the firm
  • Full cooperation with the SRA
  • Efforts made (albeit late) to replace the misapplied funds via insurers and a repayment protocol
  • Impeccable character and testimonials; Tribunal did not doubt the integrity of the First and Second Respondents
  • Long delay (investigation hanging over Respondents for four years)

Duties engaged

Documents

Source: https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/case/11080/