Howard Norman allowed his firm to be used as a banking facility for wealthy clients.
Solicitor-advocate says reasonable adjustments were not made to account for his disabilities.
Tribunal hears Abdul Hafezi had no control over client account matters.
The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £3,600, not to be enforced without leave of the SDT.
The SDT made no order against the respondent, having found that none of the allegations against him had been substantiated.
Solicitor was rightly struck off, but the nature and weight of the case seems disproportionate.
£86,000 costs order against solicitor-advocate Alan Blacker, also known as Lord Harley.
Three-day hearing into solicitor-advocate's conduct opens in his absence.
The SDT ordered that the first respondent (admitted 2007) should pay a fine of £12,000 and that the second respondent (admitted 2009) should pay a fine of £3,000.
Bridgend clinical negligence specialist's firm started to struggle when legal aid funding was pulled, tribunal hears.
Details of allegations and future dates of hearings still not made public.
Clitheroe practitioner had not intended to find indecent images on websites that claimed to feature over-18s.
The SDT ordered that the first and second respondents should each pay a fine of £1,500.
Misconduct included lending an iPad to a third party leaving access to client accounts, tribunal hears.
Today’s case management hearing revealed the SRA is handling 20,000 documents relating to the case.
Andrew Stephenson set up his own account to transfer the money from client accounts.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal ordered that the respondent should be struck off the roll.
Nick West had replied to a string of emails from a friend based at the Premier League.
Tribunal rejects regulatory settlement after admissions by DLA Piper partner.
Managers of new firm admitted failing to keep accounting records properly written up.
The SDT ordered that the respondent should pay a fine of £15,000, and should be subject to conditions.
The SRA has used the fraud taskforce to push its agenda – and the government has let it.
Tribunal report shows increase in applications and strikeoffs, with solicitors who lack ‘rounded skills to run a business’ most common category of alleged offender.
The SDT ordered that the respondent should pay a fine of £10,000, and further that she might not practise as a sole practitioner or sole manager or sole owner of an authorised body.
The SDT ordered that the order made against the respondent on 12 September 2013 should be varied.
The SDT ordered that the applicant’s application for the removal of a condition that she might not practise as a sole practitioner, imposed on 9 January 2014, should be granted.
The SDT ordered that the first and second respondents should each pay a fine of £3,000.
SDT says it was ‘baffled’ as to why the regulator had not tried to obtain a witness statement from a key figure.
The SDT ordered that the application for revocation of a section 43 order imposed on the applicant should be granted.
The SDT was satisfied that it was necessary and proportionate to make a section 43 order against the respondent. His misconduct in relation to billing and attempting to bill his clients for his personal expenses was serious.
The SDT ordered that the first respondent should be struck off the roll; and that the second respondent should pay a fine of £1,000.
'Highly commendable' progress does not count as an 'exceptional circumstance', disciplinary tribunal rules.
Matter was returned to the SDT last September after the divisional court agreed the case should be reheard.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal ordered that the application of the appellant for revocation of a section 43 order made by the Solicitors Regulation Authority should be granted with effect from 11 February 2016.
The SDT ordered that the first respondent (granted registered foreign lawyer status in 2012) should be struck off the Register of Foreign Lawyers. The SDT ordered that the second respondent (admitted 2008) should be reprimanded, and further that he should be subject to a condition.
Matthew Charles Curtis fabricated documents 'to buy time to satisfy a difficult client'.
The SDT ordered that the respondent should be subject to several conditions.