Skip to main content
discipline 4 October 2026
‹ Browse decisions

Decision record

Selcuk Karatas

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
BodySolicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT)
Professionsolicitor
Case number11258/2014
Date01/01/2014
OutcomeStrike off

Allegation / charges

Breaches, Client Money, Failures, Solicitors' Accounts Rules

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

SanctionStrike Off
CostsGBP 33,100
Dishonesty foundYes

Selcuk Karatas, a partner and conveyancer at Stuart Karatas, was found to have engaged in a systematic scheme of teeming and lading across multiple client matters, including unauthorised transfers between client ledgers, improper withdrawals, overbilling and failing to pay £6,009 of client money into client account (leaving it in his personal account for around 12 months). A minimum cash shortage of £148,475 and overbilling of £47,534.58 were identified, later rectified by his partners and insurers. He also used a forged transfer authority (though he was not found to have forged the signature himself). The Tribunal found dishonesty proved under the Twinsectra test in relation to allegations 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3, and found he lacked integrity. He absconded to Turkey when the investigation began and did not attend the hearing. With no exceptional circumstances, he was struck off and ordered to pay costs of £33,099.95.

Duties found breached:

Aggravating factors:

  • Large amounts involved (minimum shortfall £148,475; overbilling £47,534.58)
  • Number of clients affected
  • Deliberate and repeated conduct involving teeming and lading
  • Concealment was a central feature (careful and well-executed plan)
  • Respondent's dishonesty
  • Lack of participation in putting matters right
  • Breach of trust involving partners and clients
  • Reputational harm to partners and profession
  • Absconded to Turkey at the time of the investigation

Mitigating factors:

  • The Tribunal could find no mitigating factors

Duties engaged

Documents

Source: https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/case/11258/