John Knight & Second Respondent & Third Respondent

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

Three solicitors of Wosskow Brown faced allegations arising from an SRA forensic investigation. First Respondent John Knight admitted allowing the client account to be used as a banking facility on care home/investment schemes, involving the firm in a scheme bearing hallmarks of a dubious investment, creating misleading backdated documents ahead of the FIO visit, relying on them in an EWW response, and falsifying legal charge dates to circumvent Companies House registration deadlines. The Tribunal made an express finding of dishonesty against Knight under the Ivey test and struck him off, ordering costs of £19,662.16. The Second Respondent (COLP/COFA) was found to have failed to adequately supervise, fined £25,000 with an indefinite condition against holding COLP/COFA roles. The Third Respondent, with a prior 2012 disciplinary finding for similar conduct, was found to have allowed the client account to be used as a banking facility, fined £35,000 with indefinite conditions against holding client money or being a client account signatory. The Second and Third Respondents were ordered to pay costs of £39,324.32 jointly and severally. Total assessed costs were £58,986.48 apportioned equally among the three respondents.

Duties found breached:

• Honesty
• Integrity
• Uphold public trust in the profession
• Act in the client's best interests
• Non-discriminatory acceptance and cab-rank
• No improper use of client money
• Cooperate openly with regulators

Aggravating factors:

• Conduct deliberate, calculated and repeated over a period of time
• Creation/falsification of documents intended to mislead an SRA investigation and Companies House
• Significant breach of trust
• Ought to have known he was in material breach of obligations

Mitigating factors:

• Previously unblemished career
• Made admissions (albeit after being caught)
• Relatively junior and inadequately supervised at the time of the banking facility breaches
• No evidence of direct harm to individuals