Matthew Becker struck off after failing to disclose £23k capital during divorce proceedings.
A solicitor who failed to disclose over £23,000 of partnership money during his divorce has been struck off the roll following a damning judgment from the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT).
Matthew Stephen Becker, a partner at Plymouth-based Curtis Law (trading as CWC Solicitors), was found to have acted dishonestly and without integrity when he omitted his capital account holdings from divorce paperwork.
The money—consisting of drawings and a share in a new partner’s buy-in—was held in a dormant client account that had previously been used for a relative’s conveyancing transaction. He withdrew the funds just days after finalising a clean break divorce settlement in June 2016.
Becker, admitted in 2000, was also the firm’s compliance officer for legal practice. The SDT said his failure to report the breaches of the accounts rules to either the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) or his partners demonstrated a further lack of integrity.
Embed from Getty ImagesWhen completing Form E in September 2015—a key financial disclosure document in divorce proceedings—Becker failed to include the £15,400 already in his capital account. By June 2016, when filing Form D81 for the consent order, the figure had risen to £23,600, yet still went undeclared.
The SDT found this omission to be a deliberate act, intended to conceal assets from his ex-wife, referred to as Person B in proceedings.
In his defence, Becker claimed the breakdown of his marriage had shocked him into contemplating a complete exit from the legal profession. He said the firm carried approximately £500,000 in debt at the time and, due to a personal guarantee of £125,000, he viewed his partnership interest not as an asset but as a liability.
However, the tribunal said that had Becker truly believed his interest in the firm held no value, “he would have detailed both the sums in his capital account and his share of the firm’s debt”.
Even if he considered Form E to be part of an “informal and voluntary” process, “that did not entitle him, as a solicitor, to complete it inaccurately,” the SDT stated.
The judgment highlighted that the forms carried clear warnings about the need for accurate information. “The fact that it was ‘informal and voluntary’ did not negate those warnings.”
The tribunal concluded Becker misled both Person B and the court, taking unfair advantage by excluding a significant financial interest he considered outside the scope of matrimonial assets.
Additionally, the use of client account funds for personal withdrawal—despite his claim that he was unaware of the money being stored there—amounted to a breach of the SRA Accounts Rules.
While there was no conclusive evidence that Becker arranged for the funds to be placed into the dormant client account, he admitted to authorising their withdrawal to his personal account.
The SDT noted that although Becker had previously been of good character, had provided references, and had co-operated with the investigation, “the only appropriate and proportionate sanction” given the dishonesty involved was to strike him off.
The SRA had sought £52,000 in costs, but the tribunal ultimately awarded £23,655, siding with Becker’s cost analysis.
Becker’s removal from the roll serves as a cautionary reminder to solicitors that transparency in personal financial matters, especially where legal documentation is involved, is not optional—and that dishonesty, even in private proceedings, will not be tolerated by the profession’s regulator.
