Decisions and interventions

The SDT ordered that the first respondent (admitted 1987) and the second respondent (admitted 2011) should each pay a fine of £500, and it further ordered that the third respondent (a limited liability partnership and a recognised body) should pay a fine of £2,500. 

The first respondent, while in practice as a solicitor and partner at YVA Solicitors LLP and acting as the firm’s compliance officer for legal practice (COLP) and compliance officer for finance and administration (COFA), between 3 August 2021 and 28 September 2022, had failed to comply with his obligations and responsibilities, both as a manager of the firm and as the firm’s COLP and COFA. This was in relation to a commercial property sale, because he had allowed or failed to prevent or to take remedial action in relation to funds retained in the firm’s client account in the sum of £12,800,000, when there was no longer any proper reason to retain those funds. 

He had thereby breached rule 2.5 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2019; paragraphs 9.1, 9.2 and 8.1 of the Code for Firms 2019; and principles 2 and 3 of the SRA Principles 2019.

The second respondent, a solicitor, partner and also the ‘unofficial co-COFA’ of the firm, acting in an assistance capacity to the first respondent, between 3 August 2021 and 28 September 2022, after acting for client A in respect of a commercial property sale, had retained funds in the firm’s client account with a starting balance of £12,800,000, which represented part of the proceeds of the sale, when there was no longer any proper reason to retain those funds.

In doing so, he had breached rule 2.5 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2019 and principles 2 and 3.

The third respondent, a recognised body, between 3 August 2021 and 28 September 2022, when acting for client A in respect of a commercial property sale, had caused or allowed the retention of funds in the firm’s client account with a starting balance of £12,800,000, which represented part of the proceeds of that sale when there was no longer any proper reason to retain those funds. In doing so, the firm had breached rule 2.5 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2019 and principles 2 and 3.

By reason of the conduct detailed in the above allegations, the third respondent had failed to ensure that effective arrangements were in place that ensured compliance by the firm and its managers and employees with the SRA’s regulatory arrangements that were applicable; and had failed to identify, monitor and manage material risks to the firm’s business. In doing so, the third respondent had breached paragraphs 2.1, 2.3 and 2.5 of the code and principle 2.

The parties had invited the SDT to deal with the allegations against the respondents in accordance with the statement of agreed facts and proposed outcomes (SOAF) annexed to the judgment. The SDT had reviewed all the material before it and was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the respondents’ admissions had been properly made. The SDT accepted that no loss or harm had been caused to clients, that the breaches had been committed inadvertently, and that no income had been generated as a result. 

There were no previous disciplinary findings against the first and second respondents. The SDT noted their extensive mitigation set out in the SOAF and that measures were in place to prevent any repetition of the breaches, meaning that the likelihood of future misconduct was low. 

A fine of £500 to be imposed on each of the first and second respondents and a fine of £2,500 to be imposed on the third respondent were approved by the SDT as being appropriate and proportionate and in the interests of justice. The third respondent was ordered to pay costs in the sum of £35,000.

The SDT ordered that the respondent should be struck off the roll. While in practice as a fixed share partner at George Green LLP, between January and February 2023, the respondent had created and backdated (or caused the creation and backdating of) a document on the matter of client A, which had given the misleading impression that the document had been signed on an earlier date when that was not the case. He had thereby breached principles 2, 4 and 5 of the SRA Principles and paragraph 1.4 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs, RFLs and RSLs. The respondent had acted dishonestly.

On 3 March 2023, the respondent had sent an email to client B which he knew or ought to have known was misleading, as he had omitted to tell client B that a draft will had been sent to the client’s previous address instead of the client’s new address. He had thereby breached principles 2, 4 and 5 and paragraph 1.4 of the code. The respondent had acted dishonestly.

The dishonesty in the first allegation had involved a degree of planning, and had been sustained over time. That in the second allegation, although less serious in its potential consequences, had nevertheless created a false impression of what had taken place. The dishonest conduct had occurred over a short period but it had nonetheless been deliberate. 

While it was accepted that there had been no personal gain, no direct harm, and that the respondent had been experiencing mental health difficulties at the time, when balanced against the nature, scope and extent of the dishonesty in each instance, and the degree of culpability involved, the mitigation did not amount to exceptional circumstances sufficient to displace the default position that findings of dishonesty ordinarily required a strike-off. Accordingly, the SDT did not regard this case as falling within the small residual category of cases in which a sanction other than strike-off was appropriate. The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £15,000.

On 6 May 2026, the adjudicator resolved to intervene into the above-named recognised body, of Unit 207, Vox Studios, 1-45 Durham St, London SE11 5JH. The sole director at the firm is Andrew Curtin.

The ground for intervention was: it was necessary to intervene to protect the interests of clients of Belshaw & Curtin Ltd – paragraph 32(1)(e) of Schedule 2 to the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (as amended).

Chris Evans of Lester Aldridge LLP, Russell House, Oxford Road, Bournemouth BH8 8EX (tel: 01202 786341, email: interventions@la-law.com) has been appointed to act as the Society’s agent. The first date of attendance was 8 May 2026.