Benny Thomas was erased from the was Roll with £18,602 hit, partner shamed with £6,201 costs

SDT orders strike off for Benny Thomas, while co-respondent escapes with reprimand and £6.2k bill

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal has struck off Benny Thomas after branding him dishonest, contemptuous of the High Court and unfit to practise, while his fellow respondent escaped with only a reprimand and a £6,201 costs order. Thomas, by contrast, was ordered to pay £18,602 in costs, though enforcement will require the tribunal’s permission due to his means.

The case, heard under the Solicitors Act 1974, followed a forensic investigation into Consilium Chambers LLP. Investigators uncovered serious breaches of accounting rules, failures of governance and troubling conduct in court proceedings. Thomas, admitted in 2008, had already been found guilty of contempt of court in July 2013 and of giving untruthful evidence under oath in August 2013. The tribunal reviewed the evidence afresh and concluded that his explanations were implausible, dishonest and damaging to public trust. Misleading the High Court, the panel said, is among the gravest offences a solicitor can commit, and his behaviour went beyond dishonesty to strike at the heart of the justice system.

Thomas’s record of failings was extensive. He failed to maintain proper books of account, did not reconcile client accounts, permitted non-lawyers to become members of the LLP without SRA approval, and allowed them to act as bank signatories. In immigration cases, he filed urgent applications that misrepresented the firm’s role and concealed the true history of litigation. In one Statement of Truth, he named a non-lawyer as the solicitor responsible for a case. When summoned to explain himself to the High Court, he failed to attend and later gave evidence that judges found untruthful. The tribunal agreed, ruling his conduct was at the very highest level of offending behaviour.

Further, Thomas provided misleading information to the Legal Ombudsman about the employment status of a staff member following a racist email incident, and he failed to ensure proper equality and diversity measures within the firm. Allegations that he submitted misleading forms to the SRA could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt, but the panel described his explanations as incredible and shocking for someone designated as a compliance officer. Throughout, he attempted to shift blame onto others, claiming ignorance or forgery, but the tribunal rejected these accounts as dishonest attempts to deflect responsibility.

The SDT said dishonesty ordinarily results in being struck off absent exceptional circumstances. None applied in this case. It concluded that Thomas lacked insight, failed to show contrition, and posed a continuing risk to public confidence in the profession. Accordingly, he was struck off the Roll of Solicitors and ordered to pay £18,602.80 in costs, enforcement of which was stayed without leave.

The first respondent, admitted in 2007, also faced allegations over accounting failures and governance breaches. He admitted on a strict-liability basis that he had failed to keep the firm’s books properly written up, failed to reconcile the client account, failed to account to clients for interest on funds held, and permitted non-lawyers to join the partnership without approval. The tribunal accepted that he had not acted dishonestly but was naïve about his obligations and not sufficiently hands-on in the running of the business. He was described as co-operative, remorseful and willing to accept responsibility. His failures nonetheless created risks to clients and the public, and the tribunal ruled they warranted a public reprimand. He was ordered to pay £6,201 in costs immediately.

The judgment makes clear the tribunal’s reasoning: dishonesty and contempt of court demand the ultimate sanction of striking off, while failures of governance, though serious, may be addressed with reprimand and costs. The result is a tale of two outcomes. For Benny Thomas, the end of his career and a heavy costs order; for his colleague, a public shaming and a bill, but a chance to rebuild his professional life.