Skip to main content
discipline 4 October 2026
‹ Browse decisions

Decision record

Victoria Kinsella & One Other & One Other

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
BodySolicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT)
Professionsolicitor
Case number12025/2019
Date01/01/2019
OutcomeFine, S.43 Order (clerks)

Allegation / charges

Breaches, Solicitors' Accounts Rules

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

SanctionFine
FineGBP 10,000
CostsGBP 60,000
Dishonesty foundNo

The SDT found the First and Second Respondents (directors of High Street Solicitors) failed to ensure compliance with the Solicitors Accounts Rules, with client money (unpaid professional disbursements and ATE premiums) improperly held in the office account between October 2016 and June 2017, breaching SAR Rules 14.1 and 6.1, Principles 6, 7, 8 and 10 and Outcomes 7.2 and 7.3. Although they had no actual knowledge, their failure to scrutinise reconciliations was culpable. No dishonesty was alleged or found. Each solicitor was fined £10,000. Allegation 1.2 (asking holiday-sickness clients to delete social media posts) against the First Respondent was dismissed for insufficient evidence. The Third Respondent (non-solicitor COFA) was found to have failed to ensure compliance and to report a material breach despite her knowledge, and was made subject to a Section 43 Order. Total costs of £60,000 were shared equally (£20,000 each).

Duties found breached:

Aggravating factors:

  • Unpaid disbursements and ATE premiums, including client money, were in effect propping up the Firm's financial position while office account near/over overdraft limit
  • For the Third Respondent, her actual knowledge of the unpresented cheques problem which she failed to rectify or report, allowing loyalty to the Firm to override her COFA obligations

Mitigating factors:

  • Shortfall was made good/rectified by September 2017
  • Firm voluntarily self-reported to the SRA
  • Genuine insight and remorse (First and Second Respondents)
  • Full cooperation with the investigation
  • No client suffered actual loss
  • Single continuing episode in otherwise unblemished careers (First and Second Respondents)
  • No previous disciplinary matters

Duties engaged

Documents

Source: https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/case/12025/