SDT decisions: 23 July 2026

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal ordered that the respondent should be struck off the roll. 

The respondent, while in practice as a solicitor at Kenneth M. Barrow and Co Ltd, had received the following payments from Client A directly into his personal bank account, payments which she had intended to be settlement of the firm’s fees: (i) £10 on 13 November 2023; (ii) £1,000 on 17 November 2023; (iii) £2,000 on 27 November 2023; and (iv) £22,500 on 14 February 2024. He had thereby breached principles 2, 4 and 5 of the SRA Principles.

The respondent had admitted the allegation, including that his conduct had been dishonest in breach of principle 4. 

The parties had invited the SDT to deal with the allegations against the respondent in accordance with the statement of agreed facts and proposed outcome annexed to the judgment.

The SDT had reviewed all the material before it and was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the respondent’s admissions had been properly made. 

The respondent had known that the monies had been paid to his personal account, as he had paid counsel’s fees from that account. He had failed to open a file at the firm and had failed to transfer the monies received to the firm. 

The SDT did not accept that the respondent’s conduct had been an error. It was satisfied that his conduct had been deliberate. 

He had made no attempt to remedy the position, and his explanation that he had given his personal account details in error had been provided only after a complaint had been made to the firm about the payments into his personal account. 

The SDT was satisfied that the respondent had known that the monies had been paid into his account, that they should have been paid to the firm and that he had chosen not to do so. Ordinary and decent people would consider his conduct to have been dishonest.

The only appropriate and proportionate sanction was to strike the respondent off the roll. The parties had agreed that this was the sanction the SDT should impose.  

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £23,085.

The SDT ordered that the respondent should be reprimanded. 

While in practice as a solicitor at Bhatia Best Solicitors, the respondent had, on 15 July 2021, created one or more entries on the firm’s case management system purporting to indicate that work activities had been undertaken/completed in April 2021, which he knew or ought to have known were false and/or misleading because the activities could not have been genuinely undertaken/completed on the dates specified. He had thereby breached principle 2 of the SRA Principles.

The SDT had had regard to the respondent’s lack of motivation or dishonesty and proven failure to have committed any breaches of integrity or trust. He had not misled his employer, Person A, or the regulator. He should, however, bear some responsibility for adding the wrong date to a client care letter, which had resulted in generic, non-identifiable harm in terms of the public’s trust and confidence in the profession. That had been a one-off event and there was no evidence of wrongdoing on any other occasion. There were no aggravating factors.

The respondent had no previous disciplinary findings against him.

The SDT noted the wide range of character references in support of the respondent, the one-off nature of his single breach of the principles, the fact that he had not intended to deceive the firm, and the insight and remorse that he had shown under cross-examination.

In all the circumstances, a reprimand was the fairest and most proportionate sanction. 

The SDT ordered that the respondent should pay to the applicant costs of £10,000. It further ordered that the applicant should pay to the respondent costs of £27,000.