Skip to main content
discipline 4 October 2026
‹ Browse decisions

Decision record

Stephen Thomas Bailey and Another

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
BodySolicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT)
Professionsolicitor
Case number8622/2002
Date01/01/2002
OutcomeFine, Strike off

Allegation / charges

Client Money, Delays, Failures, Others

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

SanctionStrike Off
FineGBP 4,000
CostsGBP 13,500
Dishonesty foundNo

Two partners of O'Connors faced disciplinary proceedings after Law Society intervention. Stephen Thomas Bailey admitted drawing money improperly from client account, failing to bank client cheques, misusing client funds, delay, and failing to pay disbursements; the Tribunal found he deliberately/intentionally overcharged clients in probate matters (transfers totalling £70,217.75) and that he lacked probity, integrity and trustworthiness. He was struck off. The second respondent, an equity partner who largely abdicated his responsibilities, admitted failing to protect practice funds and was fined £4,000. Total costs fixed at £13,500, apportioned 85%/15% (plus Bailey paying £1,850 costs draftsman fee). No express finding of dishonesty was recorded.

Duties found breached:

Aggravating factors:

  • Deliberate/intentional overcharging of clients (up to ~700% of reasonable costs in one file)
  • Unusual pattern of frequent and repeated billing without justifying work
  • Complete failure to deliver bills or client care letters or written intimation of costs
  • Improper transfers totalling £70,217.75 causing cash shortage in client account
  • Breach of fundamentally important rules of professional conduct and failure of proper stewardship of client monies
  • Second respondent's laissez-faire attitude and abdication of partner responsibilities

Mitigating factors:

  • Bailey suffered mental ill-health and extreme work pressure/stress
  • Bailey effectively working as sole practitioner carrying most of the workload
  • Bailey accepted sole responsibility and admitted the allegations
  • Second respondent admitted the single allegation and cooperated (drew further matters to FIU's attention)
  • Second respondent shouldered all firm liabilities after intervention
  • Second respondent not directly personally culpable; granted unconditional practising certificate by Law Society

Duties engaged

Documents

Source: https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/case/8622/