Roger Paul Jackson & Second Respondent & Third Respondent

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

Three solicitors of the Betesh/BPS firm faced SRA allegations. The First Respondent, Roger Paul Jackson, an experienced solicitor with conduct of personal injury files, was found to have fabricated telephone attendance notes, caused a false Notice of Funding to be filed indicating ATE insurance existed, failed to take out ATE policies, made settlement offers without instructions, failed to inform clients that claims had been stayed/struck out, and failed to disclose his connection to a credit hire company (M&S Vehicle Hire) in which his wife was a director. The Tribunal made express findings of dishonesty (Ivey test) against him on allegations 1.2, 1.4, 1.7, 1.8 and 1.9, and struck him off the Roll with costs of £40,681.84. The Second Respondent (COLP) failed to adequately report the First Respondent's misconduct and failed to inform clients of the firm's failings; he was found to lack integrity (but not dishonest) and fined £10,000 with costs of £20,340.91. The Third Respondent lacked integrity regarding non-disclosure of his own connection to M&S and was fined £4,000 (reduced from £7,501 for means) with costs of £6,780.30. The First Respondent did not attend; the Tribunal proceeded in his absence.

Duties found breached:

• No abuse of process or coercive powers
• No improper communication with the court
• Professional independence
• No taking unfair advantage
• Uphold public trust in the profession
• Act in the client's best interests
• Non-discriminatory acceptance and cab-rank
• Prompt accounting and return of money
• Professional indemnity insurance
• Cooperate openly with regulators
• Self-report to the regulator
• No improper solicitation or touting

Aggravating factors:

• Proven dishonesty
• Deliberate and calculated conduct
• Conduct continued over a period of time
• Concealment of failings by fabricating attendance notes
• Motivated by personal gain and self-protection to detriment of clients
• Two previous appearances before the Tribunal, including a prior suspension
• Abuse of position of trust as clients' trusted advisor