A solicitor who left his practice in the hands of an unadmitted member of staff, leading to a client account shortfall of more than £160,000, has been suspended for 18 months.
Steven David Simpkins, admitted in 2001, was a partner at Simpkins & Co Solicitors from 2004 to 2015. After 2015, the firm became a recognised sole practice, and Simpkins also undertook compliance roles. The firm closed in 2023.
Simpkins admitted all the allegations against him: that he had caused or allowed the firm to have a minimum client account shortage of £145,900 in relation to client A and £15,913.78 in relation to client B; failed to have sufficient control and adequate supervision or oversight of the firm; and that he provided information regarding the financial status of the firm to the Solicitors Regulation Authority that he knew or ought to have known was inaccurate.
He denied that his conduct lacked integrity or that he had been dishonest.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found Simpkins’ admissions were properly made. It also found he lacked integrity but did not find his conduct had been dishonest.
Simpkins accepted, the SDT judgment said, that client money had been used to keep the business trading ‘including to pay salaries and tax liabilities’. The shortfall due to clients was eventually paid by the firm’s insurers.
Read more
The three-person panel found Simpkins had ‘abandoned the firm and left it to be run by an unqualified member of staff’.
The judgment said: ‘He had completely lost sight of what was happening at the firm.’ Simpkins had made no arrangements for the running of the firm in his absence and had taken very little interest in its affairs.
The panel accepted Simpkins had answered questions from the SRA ‘based on his impression of the firm’s finances with no real knowledge’. It added: ‘Had Mr Simpkins been running the firm as he should, he would have known that the answers he gave were inaccurate and misleading’.
In mitigation, Simpkins said he was ‘proud of being a solicitor’ and ‘bitterly regretted the circumstances giving rise to the proceedings’.
Considering sanction, the tribunal found Simpkins had ‘caused direct harm to his clients’ while the ‘misconduct was aggravated by the period of time over which it had continued’.
Suspending Simpkins for 18 months from 15 May 2026, the SDT said the sanction was necessary to ‘protect both the public and the reputation of the profession from future harm’. At the end of Simpkins’ suspension, restrictions will be imposed upon his ability to practise, including that Simpkins cannot practice as a sole practitioner, be a partner of a LLP, hold client money or work as a solicitor other than in employment approved by the SRA.
No costs order was made.
