The Respondent was the sole director, manager, and compliance officer of Prometheus Law Ltd, and before that of Prometheus Law, his sole practice since March 2017. The Firm’s qualifying professional indemnity insurance expired on 31 March 2022 and was never replaced. The Firm did not close at the end of the cessation period on 29 June 2022. The Respondent continued to act for clients until the SRA intervened on 30 July 2023 and acted for clients privately after that.

An authorised body must take out and maintain qualifying insurance (rule 2.1 of the IIRs). If it has not obtained a replacement policy by the time its existing policy expires, cover does not simply end. The existing insurer must continue to provide cover on the minimum terms and conditions for a further 90 days, divided into two periods.

The first is the extended policy period, being the 30 days following expiry of the policy period. During this period the firm may continue to practise as normal and must try to obtain a replacement policy taking effect from the expiry of the original one.

If it fails to do so, the firm enters the cessation period, being the 60 days following the end of the extended policy period. The firm’s position then changes materially. It may carry out work only in connection with existing instructions. It may not take on new clients or accept new instructions from existing clients. It must cease practice promptly, and in any event by the end of the cessation period, unless it obtains a qualifying policy backdated to the expiry of the original one.

In this case the Firm’s policy expired on 31 March 2022. The extended policy period therefore ended on 30 April 2022 and the cessation period on 29 June 2022.

The hearing took place remotely over four days, concluding on 17 September 2026. The Respondent represented himself and gave evidence. He admitted most of the underlying facts, including the insurance and cessation failures, the inaccurate information given to a client, his failures to cooperate with the SRA and the failures in the Firm’s accounts. He denied acting dishonestly and without integrity. None of the Applicant’s witnesses attended. The Tribunal based its findings on the contemporaneous documents and on the Respondent’s own evidence and admissions.

Allegation 1.1: practising without insurance (proved, including dishonesty) The Respondent’s broker had told him clearly that the Firm would have to cease practice by 29 June 2022 unless replacement cover was obtained. The Respondent accepted new matters after the extended policy period ended on 30 April 2022, continued to act after the cessation period ended, and acted for clients privately after the intervention. The Tribunal accepted that he had worked hard to persuade the insurer to restore cover and was trying to save a firm he had built over many years. That hope did not alter what he knew. By 29 June 2022 at the latest, he knew that the Firm was uninsured and had to cease practice. Continuing to practise in those circumstances given the state of knowledge the Tribunal found that he held at the time was dishonest.

Allegation 1.2: misleading a client about insurance (proved, including dishonesty) On 21 April 2023 the Respondent sent Client H an engagement letter that he had written and signed himself, enclosing the Firm’s terms of business. The terms stated twice that the Firm held professional indemnity insurance, once under a heading about insurance. The Respondent said the wording came from an outdated template that he had not reviewed. The Tribunal rejected that explanation as implausible, particularly given his close attention to detail and what he knew about the Firm’s position. It found that he knew the documents represented the Firm as insured when it was not.

Allegation 1.3: misleading the SRA about Client J (proved, including dishonesty) In reply to an SRA Production Notice, the Respondent described his dealings with Client J as informal help between friends, with nothing close to an engagement letter or an invoice. The documents however showed in stark contrast to this explanation that he had in fact given formal legal advice, requested and received money on account, issued an invoice, asked for identification for anti-money laundering checks and lodged a caveat preventing issue of a grant of probate in the particular matter concerned . He had also recorded in writing that he had forgotten to send an engagement letter. The Tribunal rejected his explanation that he had recognised the professional nature of the relationship only with hindsight. It found that he knew at the time that Client J was his client, and that his account to the SRA was knowingly misleading.

Allegation 1.4: failure to cooperate with the SRA (proved) The Respondent admitted that he did not notify the SRA when the Firm entered the extended policy period and the cessation period. He left SRA enquiries unanswered from November 2022 and did not cooperate with the intervention. The SRA had to obtain a High Court order in December 2023 for delivery up of documents. His argument that his failure to cooperate had not been continuous did not assist him, because the allegation did not require it to be. The Tribunal found that during the period covered by the allegation there were in any event significant and repeated intervals of time during which the Respondent had indeed failed to co-operate with the SRA.

Allegation 1.5: failure to keep proper accounts (admitted and proved) From March 2017 the client cash account was never written up or reconciled, and no list of client ledger balances was prepared. It was not alleged that any client money had been lost. There was however overwhelming evidence of breach and the admission of breach was entirely correct.

The Tribunal found that the Respondent had acted without integrity on all five allegations as an irresistible conclusion from their findings.

Sanction

The Respondent accepted that, under Sharma, strike-off is the usual sanction following findings of dishonesty. He argued that his case fell within the small residual category in which strike-off would be disproportionate. He relied on the absence of any theft or misappropriation, his character evidence and the time he had spent out of practice since the intervention. The Tribunal accepted that he had not been motivated by greed. His dishonesty, however, was deliberate, occurred in three different contexts, and continued despite clear warnings. It also continued despite his assurance to the SRA’s investigator in September 2022 that he would do no further legal work until insurance was in place. Clients were deprived of important protections, and the regulator was misled. The Tribunal found no exceptional circumstances, whether viewed individually or cumulatively, and ordered that the Respondent be struck off the Roll.

Costs

The Tribunal ordered the Respondent to pay the SRA’s costs of £45,121.40, as claimed. It found that sum reasonable and proportionate for a four-day hearing involving three allegations of dishonesty. It made no reduction for the SRA’s late service of documents, as nothing turned on it and the Respondent had suffered no prejudice. The Respondent himself had indeed made numerous applications very late, to which the SRA needed to reply It made no reduction for his means either. The Respondent was in work, his income marginally exceeded his outgoings, and he had not shown that there was no reasonable prospect of his paying in future.