Ian Benbow jailed for fraud and theft, then struck off the roll of solicitors by tribunal
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal has struck off Ian Patrick Benbow after his conviction for fraud by abuse of position and theft while employed as a solicitor.
Benbow, born on 27 July 1982, was admitted as a solicitor in February 2007. At the time of the misconduct he worked as an assistant solicitor at Molesworth Bright Clegg Solicitors in Rochdale.
On 21 February 2013, Manchester Crown Court convicted him, on his own admission, of one count of fraud by abuse of position and one count of theft as an employee. He received two concurrent prison sentences of two years.
The tribunal heard that Benbow admitted the allegations and accepted responsibility. A certificate of conviction confirmed the guilty pleas and custodial sentence. The panel found his actions breached Principles 1, 2 and 6 of the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) Principles 2011: upholding the rule of law, acting with integrity, and maintaining public trust in the profession.
Embed from Getty ImagesThe misconduct related to the theft of client funds over a period of time. His Honour Judge Lever, when sentencing at Crown Court, described the offences as a serious abuse of trust. He remarked:
“You were a solicitor of the Supreme Court and the main thing is that people have got to be able to trust solicitors to tell the truth and not steal their money … you have let your profession down very badly.”
The judge noted that Benbow had not only stolen client money but had also attempted to conceal wrongdoing through fabricated correspondence. The court described the offending as sophisticated, sustained, and damaging to both clients and colleagues.
In mitigation, Benbow wrote to the tribunal in September and October 2013, requesting that his name be permanently removed from the Roll of Solicitors. He cited health issues and personal difficulties. He also confirmed he had borrowed £11,460.40 to pay a confiscation order made against him in relation to the theft.
Despite these representations, the tribunal concluded there were no exceptional circumstances that could prevent the usual sanction. It referred to the authority in SRA v Sharma [2010] which established that dishonesty normally results in a strike off.
The tribunal stated that Benbow’s conduct amounted to disgraceful misconduct at the highest level. It described him as a risk to the public and said his behaviour had caused significant damage to the reputation of the legal profession.
The tribunal therefore ordered that Benbow be struck off the Roll of Solicitors.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority also applied for costs of £2,112, which were supported by a detailed breakdown. Although Benbow provided evidence of his financial difficulties, including imprisonment and lack of income, the tribunal ruled the amount reasonable. However, it directed that enforcement of the costs should not proceed without leave of the tribunal, given his financial position.
This case underlines the profession’s strict stance on dishonesty. The tribunal emphasised that solicitors are custodians of client money and must act with complete integrity. Breaches of this trust undermine public confidence and attract the severest sanctions.
Benbow’s strike off takes immediate effect and means he can no longer practise as a solicitor in England and Wales