Skip to main content
discipline 3 October 2026
‹ Browse decisions

Decision record

Jackie Elizabeth Filtness & Another

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
BodySolicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT)
Professionsolicitor
Case number10796/2011
Date01/01/2011
OutcomeFine, S.43 Order (clerks)

Allegation / charges

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

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

SanctionFine
FineGBP 3,000
CostsGBP 30,000
Dishonesty foundNo

Solicitor (First Respondent), sole principal of the firm, admitted breaches of Rule 1.06 (one transaction), Rule 5.01 (failure to supervise a long-serving conveyancing clerk) and Rule 23(1) SAR (client account withdrawals without proper authority). His clerk (Second Respondent) conducted numerous conveyancing transactions bearing hallmarks of money laundering and mortgage fraud, resulting in large sums being paid to third parties and losses to purchasers. The Tribunal expressly found no dishonesty and no lack of integrity by either respondent; the solicitor's culpability was negligence/inadequate supervision and controls. The solicitor was fined £3,000 and made subject to indefinite practising restrictions; the clerk received a Section 43 order. Total costs of £30,000 were assessed (case found over-pleaded), apportioned £18,000 to the solicitor and £12,000 to the clerk, both orders not enforceable without the Tribunal's permission due to the respondents' limited means.

Duties found breached:

Aggravating factors:

  • Serious impact and significant financial losses suffered by innocent third parties (purchasers)
  • Multiple suspicious transactions handled by the firm over a four-month period

Mitigating factors:

  • No dishonesty and no personal complicity in the fraud
  • Sophisticated deception by third-party fraudsters
  • Prompt notification of police, SOCA, insurers and SRA on discovery
  • Full cooperation and open, frank admissions during investigation
  • Misconduct confined to a short four-month period in a 30+ year career
  • No previous disciplinary findings
  • First Respondent personally paid substantial compensation (approx £211,000) to affected parties
  • First Respondent's severely depleted financial circumstances and poor health (stroke, disability)
  • Positive testimonials

Duties engaged

Documents

Source: https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/case/10796/