Lucia Shingirai Benyu & Ronnie Benyu

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

Lucia Benyu, a sole practitioner at Peters & Co, was found to have failed to maintain proper accounts, improperly withdrawn client money, failed to manage the firm, created false/misleading documents, and acted in conflict of interest by taking £70,000 in 'gifts' and £170,000 in loans from a vulnerable elderly client without ensuring independent advice, plus misusing funds of two clients lacking capacity. The Tribunal found dishonesty proved on all relevant allegations under the Twinsectra test and struck her off, noting the seriousness warranted strike-off even absent dishonesty. She was ordered to pay costs of £48,000 (not enforceable without permission, with liberty to seek a charging order). Her non-solicitor husband, practice manager Ronnie Benyu, admitted the allegation and was made subject to a section 43 order and ordered to pay £4,507.38 costs. The First Respondent's appeal against the dishonesty findings was dismissed by the High Court.

Duties found breached:

• Honesty
• Not mislead third parties or opponents
• Costs and fee transparency to client
• No conflict between current clients
• Handle inadvertently received material
• No improper use of client money
• Prompt accounting and return of money
• Accounting records, reconciliation and reports
• Firm governance, systems and compliance

Aggravating factors:

• Ruthless exploitation of an obviously vulnerable, elderly (85) client under/formerly under the Court of Protection
• Misuse of client funds belonging to clients lacking mental capacity (Mr W and Mr O deceased estate)
• Creating false and misleading documents to cover tracks
• Taking gift in three tranches timed to firm's cash flow needs
• Loans undocumented, no interest, no security, client unaware of extent of borrowing
• Tribunal found her evasive, not believable, clever and manipulative

Mitigating factors:

• No previous disciplinary matters
• Made a self-report to the SRA
• Cooperated with the investigation
• Repaid the cash shortage/monies
• Character testimonials
• Claimed personal stress clouded her judgement
• Firm not intervened; complied with conditions imposed