Tribunal finds sweeping misuse of client money, false billing and systemic failures at firm
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) has exposed a disturbing catalogue of misconduct at a Scunthorpe law firm, where client money was drained, phantom bills raised, and accounts left in chaos.
The tribunal heard that Steven Platts, a solicitor’s clerk, and a senior solicitor (name redacted for legal reasons) presided over years of malpractice at the long-standing firm Sergeant & Collins. The allegations, proved after an extensive investigation by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), revealed improper billing, misuse of client accounts and systemic mismanagement stretching back more than a decade.
At the heart of the case were nine bills raised on 11 June 2009, amounting to £31,791.49, which were paid directly from client funds. No copies of the bills were ever sent to the clients, nor was any proper justification provided. The tribunal described the practice as a “sweeping up exercise” to clear dormant client balances, some of which had lain untouched for more than twenty years. In one case, a football club was billed £13,507.83 despite no evidence of recent work on its behalf. That bill remained unreversed for years, even after accountants flagged the breach.
The tribunal found this conduct breached the Solicitors Accounts Rules 1998, the Solicitors Code of Conduct 2007, and the later SRA Principles 2011. It was a stark example of money being siphoned from client ledgers without lawful basis.
Other examples were equally troubling. In probate cases, bills were raised far in excess of amounts assessed by an independent costs draftsman. In one matter, more than £3,000 was taken beyond what had been authorised. The tribunal also heard how a £35 transfer was improperly made between two client ledgers, erasing a residual balance.
Embed from Getty ImagesThe misconduct extended beyond billing. Funds from the sale of property worth over £249,000 were retained for years without explanation, while in another case the firm provided what amounted to unauthorised banking facilities to a client with no underlying legal transaction.
The SRA’s forensic investigation officer, Lindsey Barrowclough, uncovered a £24,503 shortfall on the firm’s client account by 31 October 2011. That shortfall comprised the unreversed football club bill, additional matters where bills were never sent, and probate overcharging.
Platts admitted during interview that it had long been the firm’s practice to “sweep up” small client balances into office account at year end, bypassing client authorisation entirely.
The senior solicitor involved admitted responsibility for twenty separate allegations of misconduct. Although an allegation of dishonesty was originally pursued, it was later withdrawn after the tribunal concluded the failings reflected gross inefficiency and mismanagement rather than deliberate fraud. Nevertheless, the tribunal made clear that integrity and public trust had been severely undermined.
The tribunal heard how the solicitor had allowed his partner, who left abruptly in 2010, to dominate the firm’s administrative functions, leaving him isolated from crucial oversight. Yet the SDT stressed that such abdication of responsibility was no defence: as principal, he remained accountable for the safeguarding of client funds.
In Platts’ case, the tribunal accepted his absence from the hearing after medical evidence of an anxiety disorder but proceeded to make findings. His admissions about the firm’s entrenched practices were damning, showing that the misuse of client accounts was routine rather than accidental.
The tribunal concluded that the misconduct spanned years, breached multiple rules, and left clients exposed to unjustified losses and delays. It found the conduct incompatible with the standards expected of the profession.
Sanctions included fines, cost orders, and — in Platts’ case — a section 43 order, which prohibits him from working for any solicitor without SRA approval. The tribunal also emphasised that the failures damaged not just individual clients but the reputation of the profession as a whole.
The ruling sends a stark message: lawyers who misuse client funds or neglect their duties face severe consequences. In this case, the SDT found that over a decade of neglect, sweeping up of balances and phantom billing left the public trust in tatters