Paul F S Brooks and David Richardson

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

Two partners of Standish & Co faced disciplinary proceedings following an OSS inspection revealing serious Solicitors Accounts Rules breaches and a minimum client account shortage of £126,172.88, with hundreds of thousands of pounds of debt recovery client money unaccounted for. The First Respondent (Brooks), the senior partner in control of finances, was found to have dishonestly used client money for his own purposes and to have dishonestly misled the OSS investigator (applying the Twinsectra test); he was struck off and ordered to pay £15,000 costs. The Second Respondent (Richardson), who had no knowing involvement in dishonesty but had abrogated his supervisory responsibilities over 30 years despite a prior 1976 warning, was suspended for one year, fined £10,000, restricted to approved employment afterwards, and ordered to pay £5,000 costs.

Duties found breached:

• Prosecutorial duty of disclosure
• No improper use of client money
• Prompt accounting and return of money
• Accounting records, reconciliation and reports

Aggravating factors:

• Minimum cash shortage of £126,172.88 identified, with debt recovery sums of approximately £871,000-£1 million unaccounted for
• Client money used to pay firm's salaries and prevent cheques bouncing
• Second Respondent had a previous 1976 Tribunal finding for failing to supervise debt collecting work which should have served as a warning
• Second Respondent abrogated all responsibility for firm accounts over 30 years of partnership
• First Respondent gave no acceptable explanation and offered no persuasive mitigation

Mitigating factors:

• First Respondent had no previous appearance before the Tribunal
• Second Respondent had no knowing involvement in dishonest conduct and was remote from the main activity of the practice
• First Respondent accepted responsibility for the Accounts Rules breaches and spoke in support of Second Respondent
• Delay by the Applicant in bringing the matter (reflected in reduced costs)