The First Respondent was the owner of AUUA Law, and the Second Respondent, a consultant employed there. The Applicant alleged that the First Respondent provided misleading information on at least two professional indemnity insurance applications, concealing the Second Respondent’s employment despite the latter having been subject to a suspended practising certificate.

AUUA closed following the Applicant’s investigation and the Respondents were referred to the Tribunal with allegations which included breaches of several SRA Principles including honesty, integrity, and public trust. A five-day tribunal hearing examined evidence, including witness statements and a forensic investigation report, to determine the validity of these allegations. The Respondents presented their own accounts, disputing the Applicant’s claims, though the First Respondent made some admissions and the Second Respondent, having reviewed his position during a hiatus in the hearing, decided to make admissions. Both denied that they had been dishonest.

The Tribunal made the following findings on the balance of probabilities:

First Respondent
Allegation 1: Proved for the 11 May 2021 insurance application. This was a breach of Principles 2 [public trust] and 5 [integrity] of the SRA Principles and also recklessness.
Not proved for the 30 March 2021 application. Dishonesty was not proved for either PII application.

Allegation 2: Proved only for the period of 11 May 2021 to 27 May 2021. This was a breach of Principles 2 and 5 and. Paragraph 9.1 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms.

Allegation 3: Proved. This was a breach of Principles 2 and 5 and both paragraphs 9.1(a) and 9.1(c) of the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms.

Allegation 4: Not proved; the allegation was dismissed.

Allegation 5: Proved by admission for the breaches of the Accounts Rules. This was a breach Principle 2, a breach of paragraph 9.2 of the SRA code of Conduct for Firms and a failure to comply with Rules 8.1 and 8.3 of the SRA Accounts Rules.

Second Respondent
Allegation 6: Proved, the Second Respondent practiced as a solicitor while suspended, breaching Principles 2, 4 [dishonesty], and 5.

Allegation 7: Proved, the Second Respondent was involved in the Accrington office and supervision of client affairs between 28 May 2021 and 6 October 2021. In doing so, he breached Principles 2, and 5 of the SRA Principles.

The First Respondent was suspended from practice as a solicitor for the period of 1 year. The suspension was itself suspended for the period of 2 years.

The Second Respondent was struck off the Roll of Solicitors.