D S Johnston and A Kumar

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

Two solicitors in a two-partner firm (Foster Johnston Oldfield) were found guilty of conduct unbefitting a solicitor across thirteen allegations including breaches of undertakings, failure to supervise non-qualified staff, conflicts of interest, overcharging (secret profit on telegraphic transfer fees), completing purchases without signed mortgage documents, and misleading Birmingham Midshires. No dishonesty was alleged or found. The Tribunal found a pattern of disorganisation, incompetence and serious lack of supervision. The First Respondent (equity partner, greater culpability) was suspended indefinitely; the Second Respondent (salaried litigation partner, lesser responsibility) was suspended for one year. Each was ordered to pay £5,000 in costs (total £10,000).

Duties found breached:

• No improper communication with the court
• No taking unfair advantage
• No conflict between current clients
• No improper use of client money
• Supervise staff and delegated work
• Honour professional undertakings

Aggravating factors:

• Large number of complaints indicating undertakings routinely not complied with
• Pattern of disorganisation, incompetence and serious lack of supervision
• Misleading of Birmingham Midshires Building Society by First Respondent
• Secret profit of approximately £6,500 per month from inflated telegraphic transfer charges
• Inappropriate involvement of unadmitted Practice Manager in correspondence including dismissive letter to Thursfields
• Allowing unadmitted staff to run quasi-legal business (Somerville) without supervision; no Financial Services Act consideration

Mitigating factors:

• Respondents accepted all breaches alleged
• All undertaking matters ultimately remedied
• Full co-operation with the Investigating Officers
• No allegation of dishonesty made by the Applicant
• Second Respondent had lesser role as salaried litigation partner with no share of profits and health difficulties
• Explosion of conveyancing work and difficulty recruiting quality staff; procedures later rectified
• Respondents expressed regret, claiming negligence rather than deliberate conduct