Skip to main content
discipline 4 October 2026
‹ Browse decisions

Decision record

Kam Cheung Mak

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
BodySolicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT)
Professionsolicitor
Case number11708/2017
Date01/01/2017
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 17,291
Dishonesty foundYes

Kam Cheung Mak, a solicitor and COFA at MKM Solicitors, made 204 round sum transfers totaling £511,618.80 from client to office account between July 2011 and May 2016, and thereafter to his personal account to fund a gambling habit, misappropriating a minimum of £650. He recorded transfers on a Suspense Ledger rather than raising bills, failed to maintain proper accounting records, and lacked proper internal controls. The Tribunal applied the Ivey test and found dishonesty proved beyond reasonable doubt, along with breaches of multiple Principles and Accounts Rules. Finding no exceptional circumstances (Sharma), the Tribunal struck him off the Roll and ordered costs of £17,290.65.

Duties found breached:

Aggravating factors:

  • Motivation to fund gambling habit
  • Planned and repeated conduct over a lengthy period (July 2011 to May 2016)
  • Position of trust as partner and COFA
  • Experienced solicitor
  • Direct control and responsibility for the misconduct
  • Continued the round sum transfers even after the FIO's first visit
  • Clients were vulnerable (immigration clients)
  • Deceived his business/life partner Ms Marziano
  • Use of Suspense Ledger so accounts appeared to reconcile

Mitigating factors:

  • Put most of the money back
  • Acknowledged his addictions (alcohol and gambling)
  • Sought help through GP, counselling, AA and Gamblers Anonymous
  • No identifiable client lost money
  • Provided good standard of service to clients (client references)
  • Current employer supportive

Duties engaged

Documents

Source: https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/case/11708/