S Mireskandari & C S Turbin

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

Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal case (No. 10411-2009) concerning three partners of Dean & Dean. The First Respondent (Mireskandari) faced 25 allegations; 23 were proved with express findings of dishonesty on 21 of them, including misuse of client bail money (£200,000), misuse of monies subject to an undertaking (£123,500), improper transfers, false statements to courts and another solicitor, an improper scheme to pass off reconstructed injury photographs as genuine, failure to pay counsel's fees, PII misrepresentations, and pre-admission misrepresentations plus failure to disclose US telemarketing-fraud convictions. He was struck off and ordered to pay £1,400,000 costs (indemnity, no set-off, joint and several). The Second Respondent (Turbin) had all 14 allegations proved, with dishonesty on 3 (false impression to court re £200,000, false evidence about an overheard call, misleading investigators re £100,000) and recklessness on others; she was struck off and ordered to pay agreed costs of £84,060. The Third Respondent (name redacted) had all 10 allegations proved, with recklessness (not dishonesty) as to a PII misrepresentation; he was suspended 12 months and ordered to pay agreed costs of £21,600. The Tribunal rejected the First Respondent's abuse-of-process/racial-targeting defence. His later High Court appeal was dismissed (further costs of £192,378.94 ordered).

Duties found breached:

• Disclose adverse law to the court
• Proper basis for allegations
• No taking unfair advantage
• Fair, reasonable and lawful fees
• Segregate client money
• No improper use of client money
• Prompt accounting and return of money
• Professional indemnity insurance
• No baseless or threatened misconduct report
• Honour professional undertakings

Aggravating factors:

• Sustained dishonesty over a considerable period
• Complete and blatant disregard for professional obligations and regulator
• Financial damage caused to former clients and counsel with no redress made
• First Respondent posed a very significant ongoing risk to the public with no means of rehabilitation
• Failure to pay numerous adverse costs orders
• Pressuring a client (Client D) to withdraw a complaint on false promises of repayment

Mitigating factors:

• Second Respondent: no previous disciplinary findings; subservient to a forceful/domineering First Respondent; no direct involvement in original improper transfers; inexperienced as a partner; made bankrupt by firm's liabilities
• Third Respondent: no allegation of dishonesty and no finding of lack of integrity; naive/passive rather than culpable; had express agreement not to be involved in management; relied on assurances; resigned immediately on discovering problems; long distinguished CPS career; retired posing no danger to public