A solicitor has been struck off after emptying her own firm’s client account to the tune of £48,000 – before transferring the whole amount to herself.
Rebecca Elliott, of Southampton, used the account as her own personal ‘piggy bank’, using some of the cash to prop up her second business and to help her boyfriend buy a Range Rover, a Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal heard.
When the account was running low, she borrowed more than £4,000 from her mother to make it appear less empty to investigators, the tribunal found.
The disgraced solicitor was ordered to pay £16,500 for her ‘grave’ offending – which included failing to pay stamp duty on behalf of two of her clients, opening them up to fines.
At the hearing she claimed her actions were not dishonest. She said she was suffering from mental illness and relationship problems.
Elliott, a Southampton-based solicitor, was responsible for Elliotts Solicitors’ specialization in Conveyancing, Probate and Wills.
Between 2018 and 2019, a total of £22,782 was transferred from the firm’s client account – which is used for holding client money – to her personal account under the reference ‘Bex Repay.’
Rebecca Elliott (pictured), from Southampton used the account for her personal ‘piggybank’. She used some of it to buy her second company and her boyfriend a Range Rover.
And a total of £5,980 was paid out in 13 separate transactions which had references such as ‘Range Rover,’ ‘Salary,’ and ‘Car.’
According to the tribunal, “References given to these withdrawals indicate the wrong nature of [transfers]And it was shown that these documents were more likely to be improper than others because they didn’t relate to any legal services.
Ms Elliott transferred a total of £47,725 across several transactions from the client account to ones connected with her – including to the office account, an account linked to a barber shop she part owned and her personal account.
The entire amount in her client account was transferred to her account.
Ms. Elliott became a solicitor after becoming ill in 2000. She denied her dishonesty.
She said she panicked, and that she wanted to purchase some time to solve the problem.
It is not permitted for solicitors to make client money transfers to their own accounts, other than to cover costs.
It was found implausible that she did not know the rules regarding withdrawals from client accounts. She also claimed that her use of it as a piggy bank had damaged confidence in the profession.
It stated: “The sacred nature of the client account, a fundamental principle of the profession, is something that all solicitors are familiar with upon their admission to the Roll.
«[Ms Elliott]In 2000 she was certified. She had 17 to 20 years experience post-qualification, and ran her own practice.
“It’s inconceivable Ms Elliott didn’t know or was unaware of the rules governing withdrawals from client accounts.
Public confidence was breached by Ms Elliott’s use as a piggy bank of her client accounts and the provision of legal services.
Ms Elliott (pictured) was ordered to pay £16,500 for her ‘grave’ offending – which included failing to pay stamp duty on behalf of two of her clients, opening them up to fines
Ms Elliott attempted to hide the fact that there were no funds on the account during her investigation.
The tribunal heard she borrowed £4,300 from her mother to boost the amount in the client account so that a screenshot she sent to investigators said the account had £14,330 – which was ‘almost where it should have been.’
The money was transferred to her personal account. She also returned money that she borrowed from her mother.
Tribunal heard that she failed to keep five-year books of account and paid stamp duty HMRC for her two clients.
The tribunal heard that Ms Elliott failed to pay stamp duty and exposed clients to interest and financial penalties.
The tribunal ruled that Elliott caused harm by causing direct harm to clients and reputation to profession. It also found indirect harm to the public because she was an attorney of substantial standing, who repeatedly committed dishonesty for a prolonged period.
“The harm done was intentional and Ms Elliott must have known about it.”
“The Tribunal deemed Ms Elliott’s deviation from standards required of her grave and serious.