Ieuan Michael Jones named as tribunal hears claims of cash grabs and misled regulators

SDT proceeds without Ieuan Michael Jones amid claims of excess transfers and misleading replies

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal sat on 7–8 January 2020 to probe grave allegations against Ieuan Michael Jones, a partner at Jestyn Jeffreys, after he chose not to attend and was unrepresented. Chair Mr P. Booth, with Mr R. Nicholas and Mr S. Hill, granted the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s request to proceed in his absence. The Second Respondent, also a partner and the firm’s COLP and COFA, appeared and represented himself.

The SRA’s case painted a stark picture. It alleged that Mr Jones transferred money from the firm’s client account to the office account in sums exceeding what could properly be charged, or without any bills having been sent to clients at all. Investigators further said he gave misleading information to the regulator about bills and about communications with clients concerning those bills. Each allegation (1.1–1.3) was advanced on the basis that his conduct was dishonest, though dishonesty was pleaded as aggravation rather than an element required to prove the breaches.

Red flags began with a qualified accountant’s report for the year ending 31 January 2018, received by the SRA on 31 July 2018. It listed widespread breaches of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011: overdrawn office ledgers with 123 credit balances totalling £13,682; overdrawn client ledgers with 58 credit balances totalling £36,954; and failures to prepare client bank reconciliations. A reconciliation run at year end showed the bank balance apparently exceeded the cash book balance by £150,138.34, with “many unmatched items from April 2017 onwards”. A designated client account reconciliation also revealed an unexplained £5,233.80 difference.

Compounding matters, the firm suffered a system failure in October 2017, forcing reposting of transactions and leaving ledgers incomplete. By November 2018, the firm still had not brought postings up to date; client ledgers did not capture transactions after mid-April 2018, and no client account reconciliation had been carried out since March 2018. The SRA’s Forensic Investigation Officer (FI Officer) said he could not verify whether client monies held matched liabilities as at 30 September 2018.

Sampling files, the FI Officer identified at least four matters—handled by Mr Jones—where the firm had moved costs from client to office without sending bills first, resulting in a minimum client-account cash shortage of £106,527.48 as at 30 September 2018 (including debit balances). A single transfer of £794.34 from office to client on 25 October 2018 only partially reduced that hole.

In Client A (deceased), ledgers recorded thirteen bills totalling £44,100 across will, trust and estate work. A £12,000 transfer in November 2017 drove the ledger overdrawn; a further £3,711 payment in January 2018 deepened the deficit. When pressed, Mr Jones accepted he could not be sure bills had been sent and “would have to err on the side of caution”. The FI Officer’s call to Client A’s wife on 21 November 2018 recorded her saying she had received no bills and paid no money. Mr Jones later told the SRA he had sent bills on 17 December 2018; on 7 January 2019, Client A’s wife again told the FI Officer she had not received any such bills and “had no idea” about the level of costs.

In Client B (deceased), two £3,600 cost transfers in March 2018 made the ledger overdrawn by £7,200 despite no bills on file. Office bank statements showed the firm’s balance stood at £225.82 before one transfer, with outgoing payments—including to “IMJ / LLOYDS” and staff wages—immediately following receipt. Additional transfers in August and September 2018 took total costs to £12,000, though Mr Jones later recalculated £8,250 plus VAT and again claimed bills had been sent on 17 December 2018. The executor initially reported receiving no bills and, when later emailed one, queried the level and asked for a breakdown; Mr Jones allegedly admitted he had “overestimated” costs.

In Client C (deceased), the client care letter set fees by a value-based model (1% of the residence plus 2% of the rest of the gross estate). The FI Officer calculated those costs at £980, yet office statements and transfers suggested £23,500 had been taken, with no evidence on file of the complex title work Mr Jones cited to justify the figure. He later said £9,000 plus VAT was the correct total and conceded “not costs of that level”.

Client D showed a similar pattern. While Mr Jones asserted total costs of £12,250 for multiple conveyancing and estate tasks, the FI Officer traced twelve office receipts labelled “costs” across the matters amounting to £22,800; file material did not support that level. Bills dated 17 December 2018 surfaced only after enquiries.

Alongside the First Respondent’s alleged breaches, the SRA accused both respondents of withdrawing client money for costs without authority or bills, and of failing to fix Accounts Rules breaches, keep accurate records, or carry out reconciliations—engaging Principles 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10, and Rules 17.2, 20.1(a), 20.1(f), 1.2(f), 7.1 and 29.12(c) of the 2011 Rules.