![David Lester (senior partner at Blythe Liggins), Darryl Barnes, Jagdeep Sandher (head of dispute resolution at Blythe Liggins)[4]](https://d1d8vslyhr7rdg.cloudfront.net/Pictures/274x183/4/2/8/116428_davidlesterseniorpartneratblytheligginsdarrylbarnesjagdeepsandherheadofdisputeresolutionatblytheliggins4_981603_crop.jpg)
A sole practitioner who racked up a £200,000 shortage in the client account through a series of improper withdrawals has been banned from the profession.
Brian Sarney was struck off the roll by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal after electing two days before his substantive hearing to admit dishonesty and agree this outcome.
Sarney, owner of Kent firm Roger Dean & Co, was the sole signatory on the client bank account and the only person who could operate its online banking system.
Investigators found that over almost four years he arranged five transfers from the estate of one client, ranging from £1,675 to £50,000.
This was explained as a ‘loan’ to another client ledger which was never paid back. Transfers were also made from the estate to pay stamp duty land tax fees on separate and unconnected client matters, while other payments were made to pay a different client’s outstanding legal fees owed to other solicitors.
None of these payments was to any of the beneficiaries of the estate.
On another estate matter, Sarney again oversaw transfers to fund outgoings on an entirely unconnected client matter. In one case, Sarney failed to notify a residual beneficiary of their entitlement at all.
The solicitor of 45 years told the Solicitors Regulation Authority that he did not regard himself as dishonest but had struggled to keep the practice afloat and intended to pay the money back at some point.
Due to the paucity of the firm’s accounting records, investigators were unable to calculate the full extent of the firm’s liabilities to clients, although it was accepted by Sarney that £232,000 was missing from the client bank account.
He had not replaced the shortage by the time the firm was intervened into by the SRA in January 2022.
The tribunal also heard that Sarney made misleading statements to the regulator during its investigation, leaving out certain transactions and payments.
The SRA submitted that he had no intention of replacing the missing money and that he was not entitled to ‘prop up’ the firm through transfers to unconnected client matters.
Sarney had consistently denied acting dishonestly until an email two days before he was due to face a substantive hearing last month. All allegations of misconduct were found proved. He offered no mitigation beyond what he had told the SRA. He was ordered to pay £21,205 in costs.
