Skip to main content
discipline 4 October 2026
‹ Browse decisions

Decision record

Anthony David Preston

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
BodySolicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT)
Professionsolicitor
Case number10894/2011
Date01/01/2011
OutcomeStrike off

Allegation / charges

Breaches, Client Money, Failures, Others, Solicitors' Accounts Rules

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

SanctionStrike Off
CostsGBP 30,000
Dishonesty foundYes

Anthony David Preston, a sole practitioner conveyancer, faced allegations including breaches of the Solicitors Accounts Rules, acting for both buyer and seller in four conveyancing transactions, misleading clients about prices, and paying differences to a third party (Mr W-T) without client authority. The Tribunal found he had dishonestly concealed the true sale/purchase prices and Mr W-T's involvement, providing different completion statements to buyers and sellers and making unauthorised payments to a third party acquaintance. Applying the Twinsectra test, dishonesty was found on allegations 1.1(g) and 1.3 but not on 1.2. All other allegations were proved, including maintaining a sham partnership and practising as a sole practitioner without SRA authorisation. Given the dishonesty findings and absence of exceptional circumstances (SRA v Sharma), the Respondent was struck off the Roll and ordered to pay costs of £30,000 (reduced from £36,509.64 claimed).

Duties found breached:

Aggravating factors:

  • Dishonesty causing substantial financial losses to clients
  • Actively concealed true sale/purchase prices and third party's involvement from clients
  • Prepared completion statements showing different prices to buyer and seller
  • Payments to acquaintance Mr W-T without client authority totalling significant sums
  • Missing/thinned files and absence of documentation for alleged sub-sales
  • Damage to reputation of the profession

Mitigating factors:

  • No previous disciplinary matters
  • Long career (35 years) with next to no complaints
  • Poor health and reduced income due to recession
  • No longer practising
  • Rectified sole practitioner authorisation once aware
  • Made a payment to compensate one aggrieved client
  • Cooperated by admitting several allegations

Duties engaged

Documents

Source: https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/case/10894/