Absent solicitor Philip Charles York found dishonest over years of client-fund raids

SDT proceeds without Philip Charles York, finding dishonest client-account withdrawals

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) has found that Philip Charles York took client money without authority across multiple estates, labelling key withdrawals dishonest after examining years of transactions, missing bills and shifting explanations. York, born in 1941 and admitted in 1979, did not attend the hearing on 15 October 2019 and was not represented. The panel — Mr J. Evans (chair), Mr P. S. L. Housego and Mr M. R. Hallam — allowed the case to proceed in his absence, noting his emails from overseas and the public interest in concluding historic allegations.

York practised as a sole practitioner at P C D York & Co in Ealing, handling conveyancing and probate. The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) began investigating in March 2018 and intervened in May that year. SRA solicitor Robin Horton presented the case.

The central allegation covered 2010–2017 and three estates. In Mr HW’s estate, where the sole major asset was a house sold for £240,000, the Tribunal found York transferred £87,961 from client account to himself through 33 separate payments between October 2010 and August 2016. He initially called the transfers “costs”, then said the beneficiary Mrs JW had agreed a loan. The file, however, showed only 15 items of correspondence after 2010; earlier bills totalled £7,986.50, and no subsequent bills were sent. Crucially, the Mental Health Trust had already recorded in 2008 that Mrs JW lacked capacity to manage finances. In interview, York admitted taking at least some of the money to pay his rent. The SDT concluded he exploited a vulnerable client and that ordinary decent people would regard the conduct as dishonest.

In Mrs LS’s estate, the Tribunal traced a pattern of taking funds for “bills” that were not sent and did not match ledger entries. Between 2012 and 2017 York moved £75,686 from client to office account, claiming £32,125 for interim bills when drafts totalled £27,970. On 7 September 2017, he transferred £43,561 to himself, later styling it a loan. Only on 29 March 2018 did he ask the executrix to “loan” him £44,000 — months after the money had already gone. In a stark email on 2 April 2018, she rejected the request and told him she no longer trusted him. The SDT found the takings unauthorised and dishonest.

In Mrs BR’s estate, the client ledger recorded transfers of £6,097.13 (3 September 2015) and £22,790.16 (22 October 2015) to office account that were absent from the office ledger. York later produced an attendance note dated 17 October 2015 asserting the deceased’s daughter had agreed to a loan with “small interest”, but that first payment had already been taken before the note, and there was no evidence of independent advice or clear terms. The Tribunal again found the conduct dishonest.

Beyond the withdrawals, the panel identified systemic accounting failures. By 31 March 2018, the client account purported to balance at £837,741.50, yet at least £87,961 (from Mr HW’s estate) and £43,561 (from Mrs LS’s estate) were missing from liabilities — a shortfall masked by inaccurate books. Other anomalies included unrecorded payments out to the executrix and almost £30,000 moved from client to office account without corresponding office entries. The SDT held York failed to keep accurate books, failed to protect client money, and failed to remedy shortfalls promptly.

The Tribunal also recorded allegations (separate to the dishonesty findings above) that he withheld client funds for years, mishandled estate administration, and sent sale proceeds to an unknown third party in a 2017 conveyance later probed by police, before denying any unreported circumstances to insurers the same summer. Those matters formed part of the wider picture of integrity and public trust assessed against the SRA Principles 2011, the Solicitors’ Code of Conduct 2007, and the Solicitors Accounts Rules (1998/2011).

Proceeding with “utmost care and caution” in York’s absence, the SDT found Allegation 1.1 proved in full, including dishonesty, and Allegation 1.3 proved regarding inaccurate accounts and shortfalls. It held that he breached multiple Principles, failed to act with integrity, and abused a position of trust by taking client money for his own purposes.