SDT finds Paul Levy liable for multiple accounting breaches; £5,000 fine plus £7,500 costs.
Paul Levy, a solicitor and former partner at Miramar Legal, has been fined £5,000 after the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) ruled he was responsible for a string of accounting breaches that left client funds at risk for years. He was also ordered to pay £7,500 in costs.
The Tribunal heard that between 2012 and 2020, numerous rule breaches occurred within the firm, ranging from an improper transfer of £3,184.12 to persistent failures to reconcile accounts and return client money. Levy admitted all allegations on a strict liability basis, acknowledging that as a partner he retained responsibility for compliance even though his role had become passive.
Improper transfer
The most striking breach involved a 2015 transfer of £3,184.12 from a client account to the office account. The money, left over from a 2013 property transaction, should have been used to pay Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT) and Land Registry fees, with any balance refunded to the client. Instead, an invoice was raised in 2015 and the sum moved to the office account. Levy admitted that this was an improper transfer, though he denied personal involvement in creating the invoice.
The oversight only came to light in 2018 when the client tried to sell the property. By then, neither SDLT nor registration fees had been paid. The shortfall was eventually covered by Paul Levy’s fellow partner, Mohit Chopra, who was separately fined £20,000 in an earlier agreed outcome.
Embed from Getty ImagesRepeated accounting failures
Investigations revealed broader and long-running breaches. Between 2012 and 2018, debit balances appeared across multiple client ledgers where withdrawals exceeded funds held. At one point, shortages totalled £4,439.29, left unresolved for up to six years.
From 2014 to 2019, client accounts were riddled with unreconciled entries, including receipts, transfers, and payments. Some remained outstanding for years despite repeated warnings in accountants’ reports.
The Tribunal also found that between 2016 and 2020, the firm failed to return residual balances to clients once matters were concluded. In one example, a balance of £3,470 sat untouched for five years.
Even as late as 2020, breaches continued. An unexplained reversal of £300 on a client account created a debit balance, again in breach of the rules.
Tribunal’s assessment
The SDT accepted Levy’s position that he had been largely inactive at the firm from 2016 onwards and effectively stopped working there in 2018, though he technically remained a partner until its closure in 2020. He argued that he had felt “trapped” in the partnership after another partner left in 2013, mistakenly believing that resigning would trigger regulatory problems for the firm.
While acknowledging Levy’s limited involvement, the Tribunal stressed that client money is sacrosanct, and a solicitor cannot shirk responsibility simply by stepping back from daily management. As a partner, Levy was bound by the Accounts Rules and could not abrogate responsibility.
The panel noted that Levy had no previous disciplinary history in over 20 years of practice, made early admissions, cooperated fully with the investigation, and expressed genuine remorse. His conduct was described as “passive” rather than intentional, and the breaches were not linked to dishonesty or personal gain.
However, the Tribunal concluded the misconduct—spanning eight years—was too serious for a mere reprimand. A Level 2 fine was deemed appropriate, reflecting conduct assessed as moderately serious.
Sanction and costs
Levy was fined £5,000, significantly lower than Chopra’s £20,000 penalty, a distinction reflecting their differing levels of responsibility. The Tribunal also ordered Levy to contribute £7,500 towards the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s costs, after finding the regulator’s original claim excessive.
The case serves as a reminder that partners carry continuing accountability for compliance, even if they step back from active practice. The SDT emphasised that safeguarding client funds is one of the profession’s most fundamental duties, and failings—even passive ones—undermine public trust.