The Respondent was the Manager, COLP, and COFA of the Firm since its inception at its original Hounslow office in September 2019. In July 2023, the Firm absorbed another practice (formerly L&L Law) following the death of its sole principal. That practice became the Colliers Wood Branch of the Firm.

The Firm’s client care letters identified Mr Lingajothy, of the Colliers Wood branch, as a caseworker, and the Respondent as the Firm’s principal. However, it later emerged that all payments, including staff salaries, were made to and from the account of a limited liability company of which Mr Lingajothy was the sole director and shareholder. Mr Lingajothy also received fees directly from clients and deposited them into that account—of which he was the sole signatory—without the Respondent’s knowledge or permission

On 9 July 2023, undercover reporters from a newspaper, posing as economic migrants, alleged that Mr Lingajothy had advised them in a manner that encouraged the falsification of facts to obtain asylum in the United Kingdom. Following publication of the article on 11 July 2023, the Respondent dismissed Mr Lingajothy.

On 27 July 2023, the SRA notified the Firm in writing of its intention to conduct a forensic investigation, which commenced the following day.

Following the investigation, the SRA intervened into the Firm in February 2024 and referred the Respondent to the Tribunal on 9 July 2024.

In response to the allegations against him, the Respondent denied any dishonesty. He rejected the claim that he had provided misleading information in his cover letter accompanying the insurance renewal and further denied concealing any information from the insurer. Regarding the second allegation, he explained that he had amended by hand an attendance note and created an invoice in the mistaken belief that he was expected to bring the Firm’s records up to date before FIO’s next visit, following concerns raised about the Firm’s paperwork. He disputed the existence of minimum cash shortages in the Firm’s client account arguing that the Firm was under no obligation to maintain one. Whilst not specifically disputing the other accounting breaches, he denied failing to supervise the staff at the Collier Wood branch stating that he usually visited the location three times every week and adopted a “hands off” supervision style.

The Tribunal found, on the balance of probabilities, that the Respondent had failed to disclose to the insurer that he was under investigation by the SRA and had therefore provided misleading information in that respect. However, it did not find that the part of his cover letter interpreted as reporting Mr Lingajothy to the SRA was misleading. The Tribunal accepted the Respondent’s explanation that the document amendment and invoice creation were not intended to mislead clients. It did not find the Respondent’s conduct to be dishonest. Nonetheless, the Tribunal found the allegations proved in respect of breaches of the Accounts Rules and failure to supervise the Colliers Wood office. In relation to the latter, the Tribunal concluded that the Respondent’s conduct was reckless.