SDT fines Hoffman £2,000 and orders £16,074 costs after client money breaches
Solicitor Brian Hoffman has been fined £2,000 and ordered to pay £16,074 in costs by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) after failings in his handling of client accounts. The case, heard in December 2016, centred on allegations that he had allowed improper payments from client money, failed to comply with money laundering safeguards, and breached rules on record keeping and reconciliations.
Hoffman, born in 1954 and admitted as a solicitor in 1979, practised at London firm Hoffman Bokaei, where he was also the Compliance Officer for Finance and Administration. The proceedings arose from his involvement in a £10.7 million share purchase of a British Virgin Islands company, REHTL, which owned a London property known as 110. The deal involved a back-to-back resale for £11.7 million, but Hoffman’s client, Mr K, was later revealed to have been bankrupt at the time.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority alleged that on 8 September 2014 Hoffman paid £236,000 to a Dubai company, F and SI, and £150,000 to a UK firm, D Ltd, directly from client funds, effectively providing a banking facility. They also alleged that he permitted £500,000 to remain with the buyer’s solicitor without scrutiny and failed to question the transactions in line with money laundering obligations.
Embed from Getty ImagesHoffman initially denied breaching the SRA Accounts Rules but later admitted that it would have been better to pay Mr K directly. He told the tribunal that he believed the payments were legitimate, describing F and SI as “our account in Dubai” and noting that D Ltd was a longstanding UK company. He said he had researched the firms online and trusted his client’s wealthy family background. He insisted he had not knowingly breached the rules, stressing that his mistake was one of judgement rather than integrity.
The tribunal was not convinced beyond reasonable doubt that Hoffman had provided banking facilities or failed to comply with money laundering rules in relation to the £386,000 payments and £500,000 retention. It noted that the funds were tied to an underlying transaction, that back-to-back deals were common in high-value property work, and that Hoffman had taken time to consider whether to follow instructions. These allegations were not proved.
However, the SDT found proven breaches in his failure to keep accounting records properly written up and to carry out reconciliations correctly. A forensic investigation by the SRA revealed that unpresented debits and credits, some dating back years, had not been corrected, leaving understated client liabilities and funds not properly allocated. Hoffman admitted these failings, accepting ultimate responsibility as a partner and COFA, though he pointed to accountants and bookkeepers who had not highlighted the issues.
In mitigation, Hoffman said he had practised for nearly four decades with no previous disciplinary findings and had been deceived by a dishonest client. He stressed that no client had lost money and that once the problems were identified he rectified them. He described the proceedings as devastating personally and professionally.
The SDT concluded that while his misconduct was at the lower end of the scale, compliance with the Accounts Rules was essential to public trust. It ruled that a financial penalty was appropriate but also imposed indefinite restrictions preventing Hoffman from practising as a sole practitioner, sole manager, or sole owner, and from acting as a compliance officer. The tribunal noted that although no actual loss occurred, his failures created risk to the reputation of the profession and public confidence in the safety of client funds.
The £2,000 fine reflected Hoffman’s limited means, with the tribunal reducing the figure from £3,000 in light of his financial liabilities and lack of capital assets. Costs were also cut by a third from £24,135 to £16,074.
The ruling reinforced the message that solicitors must maintain scrupulous records and perform reconciliations with precision. For Hoffman, the financial penalty and career restrictions marked a stark warning that oversight lapses, even without actual loss, can carry lasting consequences