North London bookkeeper of 30 years took £15,000 from client account, later repaid—but still barred
A trusted long‑time bookkeeper at a north London law firm has been barred from regulated practice after transferring £15,000 from the firm’s client account into his wife’s personal account—an act he later admitted and repaid, yet which led to a full professional ban.
Mansukhlal Shah, who had worked for Bartletts Solicitors for three decades, held complete access to the firm’s financial systems. In June 2021, he transferred £15,000 of client money into his wife’s bank account. Crucially, she was not a client, and the funds did not belong to her. He did not deny the act; within a day of the firm discovering the missing funds, he returned the money and resigned immediately.
Despite Shah’s cooperation and remorse, the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) issued a section 43 notice, effectively barring him from working at any regulated firm without prior SRA permission. He must also pay £300 in costs. The sanction reflects the regulator’s strict stance on the protection of client money, even when funds are eventually repaid.
According to the SRA decision notice published on 9 July 2025, Shah was a non‑solicitor employee authorised to handle practice accounts while employed by Bartletts. His conduct breached professional obligations, regardless of his long tenure or belief that the money would be returned.
Bartletts Solicitors, based in north London and with over a century of history, described itself as a firm built on integrity and client focus. Shah had been seen as an institutional figure within the firm. Yet his actions triggered the SRA intervention—a powerful reminder of the regulator’s zero‑tolerance for misuse of client funds, intentional or otherwise.
Embed from Getty ImagesShah’s explanation—that the transfer was a regrettable lapse—did not spare him further scrutiny. He admitted wrongdoing, expressed insight into his misconduct, and repaid the missing amount promptly. Nonetheless, the SRA concluded that his position of trust and the seriousness of the breach justified formal restriction.
The SRA now prohibits Shah from serving in any regulated firm without direct permission, effectively ending his ability to work in regulated legal environments. This is in addition to the financial penalty of £300 in SRA costs, though no explicit fine was detailed.
This case underscores how client accounts are held in uniquely high regard by legal regulators. Even a single unauthorised transfer can result in severe career consequences. Other SRA actions—including record fines against firms and non‑solicitors for broader regulatory failures—reinforce the same principle.
Critically, the model of Shah’s misconduct wasn’t a habitual pattern over the years—it was a one‑off act, immediately rectified. Yet the regulator’s message is clear: trust in legal funds is non‑negotiable, regardless of intent or remorse.
As the profession watches, the repercussions are stark. A figure respected within a regional firm is now barred; the profession must question whether internal controls were sufficient or whether complacency led to access without oversight.
Shah’s case may serve as a cautionary tale: lifetime service cannot shield against accountability. The SRA’s decision sends a signal that safeguarding client money remains paramount, and even non‑solicitor staff can face significant sanctions.