D E Powell// D J Corlis/Another

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

The SDT found breaches against three solicitors practising at Keepers Legal LLP, including accounts rules breaches, a cash shortage, failure of due diligence under money laundering regulations, and conveyancing transactions bearing the hallmarks of property fraud with non-disclosure to lender clients. Dishonesty was not alleged or found; the tribunal instead found recklessness and breaches of integrity/Rule 1. The First Respondent (Powell), the senior partner, and the Third Respondent (Corlis), with prior disciplinary history, were struck off. The Second Respondent, with a 40-year unblemished record and found to have been used by others, was suspended for 2 years. Total costs of £29,000 were apportioned 60% to the First Respondent (£17,400) and 20% each to the Second and Third Respondents (£5,800 each), with the Second Respondent's order not enforceable without leave.

Duties found breached:

• Proper basis for allegations
• No taking unfair advantage
• Uphold public trust in the profession
• Act in the client's best interests
• Disclose material information to client
• No own-interest conflict
• No conflict between current clients
• No improper use of client money
• Prompt accounting and return of money
• Accounting records, reconciliation and reports
• Diligence and timeliness
• Professional indemnity insurance
• Hold a current practising certificate
• Report serious misconduct of others
• No improper solicitation or touting
• Not misrepresent regulated status

Aggravating factors:

• Previous disciplinary findings against First and Third Respondents (Third Respondent's fourth appearance, previously suspended)
• Multiple conveyancing transactions bearing classic hallmarks of property fraud
• Failure to disclose material information to lender clients across numerous transactions
• Client money placed at risk; cash shortage not remedied except by insurers
• First Respondent central figure/senior partner (95% equity) who misled the SRA on supervision

Mitigating factors:

• Second Respondent had unblemished 40-year record and no prior appearances
• Second Respondent found to be a reliable and truthful witness, used by others and excluded from much firm activity
• Second Respondent expressed genuine remorse and did not intend to practise again
• Failures partly attributable to financial difficulties of the firm