Robert Scott

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

Multi-respondent SDT case concerning API Solicitors, which for four years issued after-the-event insurance policies purportedly underwritten by an insurer whose delegated authority had been withdrawn in 2004, with defendant insurers paying around £335,000 for non-existent cover. The First Respondent (sole solicitor/principal) admitted failure to supervise (allegation 1.2) and was found to have received/retained commission payments via his wife's partnership interests in RST/CW (allegation 3.1); the partnership allegation (3.2) was not proved. He was suspended for 12 months with costs of £15,000 (not enforceable without leave). The Third Respondent, an unqualified practice manager, had allegations 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 4.1 proved; the dishonesty allegation (2.4) was NOT proved because, although his conduct met the objective Twinsectra standard, the subjective element was not satisfied as he had reported the problem to the controlling solicitor and followed instructions to do nothing. He received a s.43 order and costs of £12,000. Allegation 4.2 (acting as principal) was not proved. The Second Respondent had been dealt with earlier by Regulatory Settlement Agreement (s.43 order and £12,000 costs). Total costs summarily assessed at £39,000.

Duties found breached:

• Proper basis for allegations
• Disclose referrals, commissions and benefits
• No conflict between current clients
• Supervise staff and delegated work

Aggravating factors:

• Failure to supervise led to a catastrophe at the firm with insurers paying out large sums (around £335,000) for non-existent ATE policies across 832 cases
• Conduct occurred over an extended period
• First Respondent turned a blind eye to the firm invoicing for non-existent insurance policies
• Complete lack of insight regarding taking commissions; party to setting up entities designed to circumvent the rules

Mitigating factors:

• First Respondent young and inexperienced with no experience of managing a business or practice when firm set up
• No previous disciplinary matters against either respondent
• Losses were made good (though only after aggrieved parties took proceedings)
• First Respondent admitted the failure to supervise from the outset
• First Respondent suffered clinical depression and had paid a heavy price (costs, litigation, no income over five years)
• Third Respondent had passed the problem to the controlling solicitor and followed his instruction of inactivity

⚠ figures not found verbatim in the source were dropped: ["review_dishonesty_finding_cue_present"]