The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal has struck off Northamptonshire sole practitioner Shashi Patel following findings of dishonesty, serial non-compliance with client account rules, and a sustained failure to co-operate with the Solicitors Regulation Authority — a case the tribunal described as representing a “clear disregard for rules and regulations designed to protect the reputation of the legal profession.”
Patel, 64, practised as Patel & Co until the SRA intervened to close the firm three years ago, triggering a disciplinary process that exposed systemic failures dating back to 1999. The regulator’s investigation began after the firm self-reported in 2022 that it had been the victim of a vishing fraud resulting in £167,000 being improperly withdrawn from its two client accounts.
What followed revealed problems far older and deeper than the fraud itself: 685 client matters carrying outstanding balances, many dormant for over three years, and at least one untouched since the year Patel was still building a practice in the Major era.
The SRA found that client account reconciliations at Patel & Co had been left unsigned and unreviewed for years at a time — a statutory obligation under the SRA Accounts Rules, and one the Law Society’s own practice notes have consistently reinforced as a first-line protection for client funds, that requires completion at least every five weeks.
Patel himself told investigators that reconciliations had not been signed off for five years. Where records existed, they disclosed significant and unexplained discrepancies between cash book and client bank balances. Patel could not confirm the extent of the shortfalls or identify to whom the money belonged.
The tribunal’s findings of dishonesty centred on a professional indemnity insurance renewal form on which Patel wrongly declared that Patel & Co had not been subject to any SRA investigations in the preceding ten years.
The tribunal found this was a deliberate misstatement by an experienced solicitor who understood the consequence, the risk of voiding his PII policy and leaving clients without recourse. Patel had previously admitted negligence but denied dishonesty; the tribunal rejected that distinction. He did not attend his own hearing.
For sole practitioners and small firm managers, the decision reinforces the SRA’s consistent enforcement posture on accounts rules failures: that a pattern of inaction, compounded by dishonesty on regulatory forms and non-cooperation with investigators, will attract the most severe sanction available.
The tribunal ordered Patel to pay £45,337 in costs. The SRA Compensation Fund, administered under the Solicitors Act 1974, provides a backstop for clients who suffer loss where a firm’s PII has been voided or is otherwise unavailable – a protection Patel’s non-disclosure directly imperilled. The SRA is expected to pursue further cases against sole practitioners with unreconciled client accounts as part of its ongoing supervisory focus on smaller firm compliance.