The SDT found Steven Simpkins lacked integrity but did not find dishonesty proved
Solicitor Steven David Simpkins has been suspended for 18 months after the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found he caused or allowed client account shortages and failed to maintain proper control over his firm.
The tribunal found that Simpkins, who practised at Simpkins & Co Solicitors, caused or allowed shortages of £145,900 in relation to one client and £15,913.78 in relation to another. It found that his conduct breached SRA principles, accounts rules and code of conduct obligations.
The SDT found that client money had been used to keep the firm trading, including to pay salaries, tax liabilities and other office liabilities. The shortages related to damages that should have been paid to clients.
Simpkins admitted the allegations, except that he denied acting dishonestly or without integrity. The tribunal found that his conduct lacked integrity, but did not find dishonesty proved.
The tribunal said Simpkins had “abandoned” the firm and left it to be run by an unqualified member of staff. It found that he had taken no active part in running the firm for some time, made no arrangements for its management in his absence and had taken very little interest in its affairs.
Simpkins was the firm’s sole manager, compliance officer for legal practice and compliance officer for finance and administration. The tribunal found that he failed to have sufficient control, supervision and oversight of the firm.
The SRA had also alleged that Simpkins provided inaccurate or misleading information to a forensic investigation officer about the firm’s financial position. The tribunal found that he ought to have known his answers were inaccurate and misleading, and that this conduct also lacked integrity.
However, the tribunal rejected the dishonesty allegation. It said it was not satisfied that, at the time of the relevant interview, Simpkins knew the firm was in financial difficulties, knew there was a client account shortage on one client file, or knew that his answers were inaccurate and misleading.
In mitigation, Simpkins said he had made efforts to repay client money, had put his house on the market to repay the shortage and had admitted the accounts rules breaches once they were brought to his attention. The tribunal also noted his personal circumstances, co-operation with the SRA, previously unblemished regulatory record, insight and remorse.
The shortfall in damages due to the two clients was paid by the firm’s insurers.
The tribunal said no order, a reprimand or a fine would not be proportionate given the seriousness of the findings. It said there was a need to protect the public and the reputation of the profession by suspending Simpkins’ ability to practise.
Simpkins was suspended from practice for 18 months from 15 May 2026. After the suspension, he will be subject to indefinite restrictions, including bans on practising as a sole practitioner or sole manager, being a partner or member of an authorised body, acting as COLP or COFA, holding client money or being a signatory on a client account.
The SDT made no order for costs after finding there was no reasonable prospect that Simpkins’ financial circumstances would improve enough for him to meet a costs order.