SDT expels Andrew J. C. Banfill as a £67,500 bill lands over unlawful client-account raids

Solicitor struck off after tribunal finds improper client-account transfers and orders £67,500 costs

A solicitor has been struck off after the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) found he authorised or was responsible for improper withdrawals from client account and failed to protect clients as his practice unravelled. Andrew James Cameron Banfill, admitted in 1992, faced a catalogue of breaches—some found to be dishonest—arising from his time at OBG Cameron Banfill LLP before the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) intervened in March 2009.

The SDT heard the case on 24–25 July 2012 before Mrs J. Martineau (chair), Mr J. C. Chesterton and Mr R. Slack. Banfill did not attend and was unrepresented. Counsel Andrew Tabachnik, instructed by Attwaters Jameson & Hill, appeared for the SRA. After rejecting Banfill’s late bid to adjourn, the Tribunal pressed on, noting the matters dated back to 2008 and required resolution.

Regulatory concerns began with a January 2009 “walk-by” inspection. Files sat unsecured; staff had largely gone; and clients, according to complaints, struggled to reach anyone. The firm’s accountants, SPW, told the SRA the practice had effectively ceased trading while they tried to reconcile the client account—already showing a shortage. The SRA intervened on 11 March 2009.

Forensic investigation later identified an unverified minimum cash shortage of £400,869.08 and several suspect client-account transfers. On 2 September 2008, £160,000 moved from client to the offices of an associated entity (PC), only for almost the same sum to flow into the firm’s office account within days—timed against an overdraft limit and staff salary runs. On 10 September 2008, a further £25,000 left client account tagged vaguely to an invoice that never surfaced.

The most damning finding concerned a £110,000 client-account transfer on 29 October 2008 tied to two invoices dated a week after the money moved. The client disputed the bills; the funds, the Tribunal found, were also subject to a Proceeds of Crime Act Restraint Order in force until 21 January 2009. Office-account records then showed six payments totalling £60,000 to a US bank account in the name “A Banfill”. The SDT concluded Banfill knew the money was restrained and that he was not entitled to levy fees linked to work belonging to administrators of the predecessor firm. It found dishonesty proved to the criminal standard.

Another transfer—£50,000 on 5 January 2009—from a client ledger tied to a settlement with the Premier League was also condemned. The sum should have gone to a litigation funder under an undertaking Banfill had signed, but instead helped finance salaries, accountants’ fees and payments to an American account. A witness, Patrick Heffernan, told the Tribunal he did not authorise that withdrawal; the SDT accepted his evidence and held Banfill must have approved it as the remaining authorised signatory.

Alongside the withdrawals, the Tribunal found wide-ranging compliance failures: poor client care, ineffective firm management, failure to deliver an accountant’s report, and missing or deficient accounting records. Only one allegation—breach of a practising certificate condition—fell short for lack of proof that Banfill remained a manager after conditions were imposed.

Citing the well-known Bolton principle on integrity, the SDT ruled that striking off was necessary to protect the public and uphold the profession’s reputation. It fixed costs at £67,500, noting Banfill offered no evidence of means and had promised previously to make good any shortfall. The formal order struck him from the Roll and required payment of the SRA’s costs. Judgment was dated 11 September 2012.