Tribunal finds dishonesty over client-to-office transfers; solicitor struck off the roll
A solicitor who funnelled client money through office accounts and into his own pocket has been struck off. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) removed Adrian Andrew Parker from the profession after finding he acted dishonestly over repeated client-to-office transfers that left a gaping shortfall.
Parker, admitted in 1991, practised in partnership at D S Bosher & Co in Hove and Peacehaven. A Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) forensic investigation began in May 2013 and uncovered a client-account shortage of £305,057.17 as at 30 April 2013. The shortfall stemmed from debit balances (£122,820.40), unallocated client-to-office transfers (£193,827.49) and an “unknown difference” of –£11,590.72. One remaining partner, identified as Mr B, replaced £120,000 in May 2013, but £185,057.17 still remained unreplaced by the final meeting that October.
Against that backdrop, the SDT examined Parker’s own movements of cash. Between April 2011 and March 2012, he transferred £107,048.10 from the firm’s Peacehaven office account to his personal bank account. During May to July 2012, cheque stubs for the Hove office showed further personal payments to him totalling £23,828.59. On multiple days, the sums taken by Parker from office account matched same-day transfers from client account into office—classic round-sum shifts unbacked by bills.
Two client matters illustrated the damage. On the estate of Mr ATB (deceased), interim accounts suggested at least £52,268.58 should have been held on client account by 4 April 2012; the bank balance at Peacehaven stood at £948.09. For Mrs BSC, the firm should have held £24,740.30 on 8 April 2012—again, the client account showed only £948.09. The Tribunal found that substantial liabilities could not be met because client funds had been drained.
Embed from Getty ImagesParker admitted failures to ensure compliance with accounts rules, improper withdrawals from client account and missing reconciliations. He accepted he had made round-sum transfers without delivering bills or written notices of costs. He denied dishonesty, arguing he believed he had earned the money and intended to regularise the position later. He cited a serious car accident in 2010, poor health, and a chaotic practice environment following the death of the firm’s cashier in 2012. He also told the Tribunal he had resigned from the partnership in August 2012 and later resigned as a Deputy District Judge.
The SDT rejected his account on the central question. Applying the established test for dishonesty, it found that Parker’s conduct—moving identical amounts from client to office and then to himself without any bills—would be regarded as dishonest by ordinary, honest people, and that Parker knew it. He had exclusive control of online banking at Peacehaven for a time, later used Hove cheque books, and kept withdrawals in line with his salary needs, even as his working hours reduced. He knew the overdraft limit, watched it, and “topped up” the office account from client funds to ensure his own payments cleared. The pattern continued over many months.
The Tribunal highlighted aggravating factors: a sustained course of conduct; misuse of client money; harm to clients who could not be paid; and flagrant breaches of rules designed to protect the public. It noted Parker’s long, previously unblemished career and his admissions as mitigation, but concluded there were no exceptional circumstances to justify anything less than the ultimate sanction.
Citing its Sanctions Guidance and the principle that dishonesty with client money almost invariably leads to removal, the SDT struck Adrian Andrew Parker off the Roll of Solicitors.
On costs, the Applicant sought recovery of case expenses. The Tribunal fixed £26,415.15 against Parker but ordered that the costs not be enforced without leave of the Tribunal, given his stated debts, limited income and loss of livelihood.
The order draws a hard line: repeated, deliberate transfers of client money—whatever the personal pressures—destroy public trust. Parker’s name now leaves the Roll; the message to the profession could not be starker