Ellen Yee-Man windsor accused of “dipping into” £30,000 client cash in divorce saga

Tribunal hears how £30,000 from a divorce client wasn’t kept in a client account, sparking fury

A solicitor stands accused of fatally betraying professional safeguards after £30,000 from a divorce client was not kept in a client account, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) heard. The case, SRA v Ellen Yee-Man Windsor (Case No. 11808-2018), was listed before Mr A. Ghosh (chair), Mr J. A. Astle and Mrs C. Valentine, with hearings on 15–16 January 2020. The applicant was the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA); the respondent did not attend and was not represented. An appeal was later withdrawn and dismissed by consent on 15 June 2023.

According to the SRA, the allegations centred on money paid by or on behalf of “Client CG” between March 2012 and March 2013. The sums, totalling £30,000, were allegedly received by Ms Windsor while practising as a sole practitioner at Ellen Windsor Solicitors. The SRA said those funds were not transferred to, or held in, a client account as the accounts rules require. Instead, investigators said, office accounts were used, blurring the line between client money and firm money and exposing the client to unnecessary risk.

The tribunal heard that, across the same period and up to December 2016 (alternatively from January 2014), the respondent allegedly misappropriated all or part of the client funds; failed to use the money solely for the client’s matter; and failed to ensure it was immediately available. The SRA also alleged that false or misleading statements were made to the client and to the client’s former husband’s solicitors about money said to be held for settlement, and that the client was at points discouraged from reporting concerns to the regulator or the Legal Ombudsman.

Before the hearing, Ms Windsor sought an adjournment, citing ill-health and the need to obtain expert medical evidence. The request was refused. The tribunal noted a history of extensions since 2018 and said the evidence supplied — including a brief GP letter — fell short of what was required for such a late adjournment. Citing established principles on proceeding in absence, the panel concluded it was fair and in the public interest to continue without the respondent, given the seriousness of the allegations and the pattern of delays.

Witnesses for the SRA included its forensic investigation officer and Client CG. The tribunal reviewed the documentary record: the application and Rule 5 statement, correspondence from 2018–2020, and witness evidence. Client CG maintained that the money was provided for settlement in divorce proceedings, not as a personal loan to the firm. The SRA said the firm did not operate a client account and that client funds were paid into office accounts; repayments to the client came piecemeal years later and only in full after external pressure.

In response, the tribunal recorded, Ms Windsor argued that the payments were effectively a consensual loan to the firm on which interest was to be paid, that her personal resources were sufficient to cover the sums, and that any breach would be technical. She challenged the reliability of the SRA’s forensic report and the credibility of the complainant.

The tribunal rejected the “loan” characterisation. It held there was no agreement or independent legal advice suggestive of a bona fide lending arrangement. Payments matched the timeline of settlement negotiations, and the funds were clearly client money. The panel found beyond reasonable doubt that Ms Windsor failed to keep client money separate and to pay it without delay into a client account, breaching mandatory accounts rules and Principles requiring integrity, protection of client assets, and maintaining public trust.

Client money, the tribunal said, is “sacrosanct”: using it like a float for the office subordinates a client’s interests to the solicitor’s. Whatever personal resources the respondent may have had was irrelevant to the obligation to ring-fence client funds.

The panel proceeded to consider further allegations concerning misuse of funds, availability of monies, and misleading statements. (The respondent had denied dishonesty; the tribunal noted dishonesty was alleged for several heads but said it was not essential to prove those breaches.