The SRA brought two allegations arising from events in January–March 2023 while the Respondent practised in the private client department at George Green LLP. In Allegation 1.1 (Client A), it was alleged that he created and backdated a Memorandum of Appropriation to 13 December 2022, thereby giving the false impression that the appropriation predated completion; breaches of Principles 2, 4, 5 and Code 1.4 were pleaded. In Allegation 1.2 (Client B) it was alleged that his 3 March 2023 email was misleading, in that it reassured the client while attaching a Will revised to a new address without acknowledging the earlier posting to the old address; the same Principles and Code were relied upon.

Applying the test in Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd t/a Crockfords [2017] UKSC 67, the Tribunal found dishonesty proved on both allegations. The medical evidence (admitted on the papers) did not demonstrate that the Respondent held any different belief about the relevant facts at the material times; on the facts as found, ordinary decent people would regard the conduct as dishonest. The Tribunal noted, in particular, that the conduct comprised two separate incidents involving different client matters, each involving discrete steps. Each allegation also involved misleading conduct and lack of integrity.

Given the nature, extent, and scope of the dishonesty—encompassing conduct on two separate occasions and forming the most significant factor—the absence of personal gain and the limited direct harm to others were not capable of displacing the default position that findings of dishonesty ordinarily require a strike off. Accordingly, the Tribunal did not regard this as falling within the small residual category of cases in which a sanction other than strike off was appropriate.