The Respondent is a solicitor admitted to the Roll on 1 October 1985 who, at all material times, was an Equity Partner, Compliance Officer for Finance and Administration (“COFA”) and Compliance Officer for Legal Practice (“COLP”) at Hadgkiss Hughes & Beale (“the Firm”).

The proceedings arose from concerns identified during a forensic investigation commenced by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (“SRA”) in November 2022, following a series of qualified Accountant’s Reports submitted by the Firm over a number of years. The investigation led to allegations concerning professional indemnity insurance proposal forms, the Firm’s compliance with the SRA Accounts Rules, the late submission of qualified Accountant’s Reports and the withdrawal of client money without prior SRA authority.

In relation to Allegation 1.1, the Applicant alleged that on four occasions between 2018 and 2022 the Respondent signed professional indemnity insurance proposal forms which incorrectly stated that the Firm’s accounts had not been qualified within the preceding five years. It was common ground that those answers were inaccurate. The Respondent accepted responsibility for signing the forms and accepted that the answers should have been different. However, he maintained that the inaccuracies resulted from inadvertent error rather than any deliberate attempt to mislead insurers.

At the commencement of the hearing, the Applicant applied for permission to withdraw the allegations of dishonesty and misleading conduct advanced in connection with Allegation 1.1. The Applicant’s position was that the Respondent’s conduct was more appropriately characterised as raising issues of integrity and professional standards rather than dishonesty.

Allegation 1.2 concerned the Firm’s compliance with the SRA Accounts Rules between 2015 and 2024. The Applicant relied upon repeated qualifications in Accountant’s Reports and findings made during the forensic investigation to allege that the Firm retained client money after any proper reason for doing so had ceased and that the Respondent, as COFA, failed to take all reasonable steps to ensure compliance with the Firm’s regulatory obligations.

The Respondent disputed significant aspects of Allegation 1.2. Whilst accepting that breaches of the Accounts Rules occurred, he contended that the Applicant had failed adequately to establish the basis of many of the alleged residual balance breaches and had not properly identified what further reasonable steps he ought to have taken in his capacity as COFA.

Allegations 1.3 and 1.4 related respectively to the late submission of two qualified Accountant’s Reports and the transfer of client money to a charity without prior SRA authorisation. The Respondent admitted the underlying Accounts Rules breaches but disputed the extent of his personal culpability and relied upon the surrounding circumstances, including the impact of the Covid 19 pandemic and the actions of others within the Firm.

Accordingly, the principal issues for determination were whether the Respondent’s conduct in relation to the insurance proposal forms amounted to a lack of integrity; the extent of his personal responsibility, as COFA, for the Firm’s repeated Accounts Rules breaches; and the seriousness of the admitted regulatory failings established by Allegations 1.3 and 1.4.