Skip to main content
discipline 3 October 2026
‹ Browse decisions

Decision record

Noel William Pugsley

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
BodySolicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT)
Professionsolicitor
Case number11479/2016
Date01/01/2016
OutcomeStrike off

Allegation / charges

Breaches, Client Money, Solicitors' Accounts Rules

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

SanctionStrike Off
CostsGBP 10,418
Dishonesty foundYes

Noel William Pugsley, a solicitor and partner specialising in wills and probate, misappropriated client monies totalling £203,785 across four client accounts (B, G, S and F) on 14 occasions between March 2013 and April 2014, moving funds to unrelated client ledgers to conceal his inaction on other files. He also fabricated a Decree Absolute and misled his client Mrs LW into believing her divorce was finalised. The Tribunal found all five allegations proved beyond reasonable doubt, including express findings of dishonesty under the Twinsectra test on each. The Respondent did not attend but submitted a full response admitting the conduct. Despite genuine remorse, cooperation, no prior record and health/work pressures, the misconduct was at the highest level and the Respondent was struck off the Roll and ordered to pay costs of £10,417.60.

Duties found breached:

Aggravating factors:

  • Dishonesty
  • Deliberate, calculated and repeated misconduct over a 13-month period
  • Misappropriation of client funds totalling £203,785 on 14 separate occasions across four client accounts
  • Steps taken to conceal misconduct through deliberately misleading client ledger posting form entries
  • 13 years' post-qualified experience operating at partner level with direct control and responsibility
  • Potentially catastrophic harm to Mr and Mrs LW who believed they were divorced when still married

Mitigating factors:

  • No previous disciplinary matters; conduct out of character
  • Genuine insight and remorse
  • Co-operation with the SRA and early, comprehensive admissions
  • No personal financial gain - money paid to other clients not to himself
  • Underlying personal and health issues and overwhelming work pressures
  • Firm replaced the shortfall so no client suffered financial loss; Respondent waived capital payment towards repayment

Duties engaged

Documents

Source: https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/case/11479/