Kevin Michael Quigley, 36, admitted 1985, practising at material time as The Quigley Partnership, Bolton, struck off and ordered to pay £5,076 costs. Allegations substantiated he failed to keep properly written-up accounts, failed to pay funds into client account, wrongly drew money from client account and used for his own purposes, and misappropriated clients' funds. Tribunal said in breaching the Solicitors Accounts Rules and paying money for professional disbursements into office account before those monies were disbursed he exemplified precisely the mischief that the Rules were designed to avoid. Clients' funds were sacrosanct and the utilisation of them by a solicitor for his own purposes was dishonest misappropriation and would not be tolerated.
William Humphreys-Evans, 54, admitted 1970, practising at material times as Humphreys-Evans & Co in London, fined £500 and ordered to pay £1,175 costs. Allegation substantiated he failed to deliver Accountant's Reports. Tribunal said he had got himself into a mess from which he appeared to be extricating himself by giving instructions for the reconstitution of his missing cash book. He was to be given credit for that, which Tribunal recognised was likely to be an expensive operation. Tribunal also noted that there was no loss to clients and no dishonesty.
Ralph Carter, 53, admitted 1969, practising at material time on own account in his own name at Farnham, Surrey, fined £5,000 and ordered to pay costs of £3,590. Allegations substantiated he failed to provide books of account for inspection, failed to maintain properly written accounts, wrongly drew money from client account, unreasonably delayed accounting to clients in respect of money held on their behalf and failed to deliver Accountant's Reports. Tribunal recognised he had not been dishonest, and that despite his own parlous financial position there was no question of loss to clients or any attempt to utilise clients' money to alleviate his own financial difficulties. Tribunal was pleased to note he had gained employment as an assistant solicitor. It considered depriving him of his ability to practise for a period of time, but felt such a sanction would serve no useful purpose. A substantial fine would demonstrate the seriousness with which it viewed his failures.