SDT: Lack of integrity but not dishonesty
A personal injury solicitor who abandoned his firm whilst struggling with health issues and addiction – leaving it to be run by his office manager – has been suspended for 18 months.
A Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal heard that Steven Simpkins, a sole practitioner trading as Simpkins & Co, walked out on his cash-strapped firm in Hampshire in late 2020, leaving Jacque Aitken in charge.
To keep the firm afloat, Ms Aitken took £161,800 from two client accounts to pay the firm’s wages, national insurance, bank loans and “office liabilities”.
In 2024, she was made subject to an order under section 43 of the Solicitors Act 1974, meaning she cannot work in the profession in future without the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s (SRA) permission.
The SDT was told Ms Aitken made numerous transfers into the firm’s office account from November 2020 onwards “because there were no other funds.”
Mr Simpkins was alleged to have caused, or allowed the firm to have, a client account shortage of £161,800 and failing to have adequate control, supervision or oversight of the firm.
The shortage related to personal injury damages to two clients and were ultimately paid by the firm’s indemnity insurer.
Mr Simpkins was also accused of giving “inaccurate and/or misleading” information about his firm’s finances to the SRA’s investigators.
At a two-day hearing last month, Mr Simpkins, who qualified in 2001, admitted all the allegations but denied acting dishonestly and without integrity.
The SDT heard SRA investigators first spoke with Mr Simpkins in March 2023, after receiving a qualified accountant’s report.
When Mr Simpkins was asked whether he was aware of the firm’s financial difficulties or misuse of client funds, he answered ‘no’ every time and the investigation was closed.
Ms Aitken, who worked at the firm for eight years, told the tribunal she warned Mr Simpkins that, if the SRA found out about the client money, “we would be in trouble”.
Mr Simpkins told Ms Aitken he would repay it all by selling his house.
She said she would take financial paperwork to his house, which she described as “extremely dirty and messy” and would end up cleaning the kitchen for him, and met with him on rare occasions in the office in Lyndhurst, but he “never seemed interested”.
A former litigation executive at the firm recounted how Mr Simpkins “would ‘disappear’ for weeks on end – by which I mean that there would be no response to emails, and he would not engage with me, or anyone else at the firm as far as I was aware”.
One month after the first SRA investigation, Ms Aitken contacted the regulator and admitted that the client account shortage “had been hidden” and the investigators “had been misled”.
The SRA informed Mr Simpkins he “must replace the shortage as a matter of extreme urgency”. But this did not happen.
When Mr Simpkins was questioned by investigators for a second time, he said: “The money received in the client account is needed to run the business, so it’s needed to pay salaries, to pay tax liabilities. I’m trying to keep the business running.” The firm closed in September 2023.
The tribunal ruled that Mr Simpkins had abandoned the firm and left it to be run by an unqualified member of staff.
“He had completely lost sight of what was happening at the firm. He had wholly failed to comply with his regulatory obligations and had abrogated his responsibility for the running of his firm.”
Mr Simpkins blamed his behaviour on “his health issues and addiction” and attributed his situation to stress and mental health problems “arising from medical issues, the Covid lockdowns and personal family problems”.
He told the tribunal his priority was to repay the clients, but because he could not afford to do this immediately, he had wanted to pay staff and keep the firm running so that he could then pay back the shortfall.
The SDT acknowledged that Mr Simpkins did not benefit financially, but he had caused harm to his clients.
It ruled Mr Simpkins did act without integrity but not that he was dishonest – at the time of his first interview with the SRA, he was not aware of the misuse of client funds, but should have been.
The SRA’s application for £33,362 in costs was also rejected. The panel noted that Mr Simpkins lives on state benefits, so there was no reasonable prospect of him repaying this amount of money. His firm closed in September 2023.
Mr Simpkins told the tribunal he was proud of being solicitor and “bitterly regretted” the circumstances that led to this case.
He said he wanted to remain on the roll and believes his skills as a solicitor were still useful. He said he planned to work with the Citizens Advice Bureau “when able”.
He was suspended for 18 months, with conditions for any return to the legal profession, including not being able to practise as a sole practitioner or a partner, not holding client money or being a signatory on any client account, and not working as a solicitor other than in employment approved by the SRA.
Leave a Comment