Steven David Simpkins

Introduction

Steven David Simpkins is a solicitor, admitted in 2001, who was suspended from practice for 18 months by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal after his firm, Simpkins & Co Solicitors, was left with client account shortages totalling more than £160,000. The tribunal found Simpkins, who was the firm’s sole manager and its compliance officer for legal practice and finance, had caused or allowed a minimum client account shortage of £145,900 in relation to one client and a further £15,913.78 in relation to another, had failed to properly supervise the firm, and had provided information to an SRA forensic investigation officer about the firm’s financial status that he knew or ought to have known was inaccurate and misleading. The suspension took effect on 15 May 2026, and on its expiry Simpkins is subject to strict conditions on any return to practice.

Background Information

Simpkins & Co Solicitors operated with Simpkins as its sole manager, holding both compliance roles — COLP and COFA — that make an individual personally responsible for a firm’s regulatory compliance and client money controls. The shortages concerned two identified clients, and the tribunal’s findings traced them to failures at the level of firm management rather than isolated bookkeeping errors.

The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation

Regulatory findings, not criminal charges. The tribunal’s findings are on the civil standard and concern client account breaches and misleading information to the regulator. The shortage figures are minimums as found by the tribunal in relation to the two clients named in the ruling.

The tribunal found that Simpkins had caused or allowed the firm to have a minimum client account shortage of £145,900 in relation to Client A, and a minimum shortage of £15,913.78 in relation to Client B, breaching the SRA Principles and the SRA Accounts Rules. As sole manager, COLP and COFA, he had failed to have sufficient control and adequate supervision or oversight of the firm. Separately, the tribunal found he had provided information to the SRA’s forensic investigation officer regarding the financial status of the firm that he knew, or ought to have known, was inaccurate or misleading.

The tribunal assessed the consequences seriously: Simpkins “had caused direct harm to his clients and to the reputation of the profession”, and his misconduct was aggravated by the period of time over which it had continued. It concluded it was “necessary to protect both the public and the reputation of the profession from future harm by removing the respondent’s ability to practise”, and that a fixed-term suspension of 18 months adequately reflected the seriousness.

Public Reaction and Consequences

The tribunal paired the suspension with an unusually restrictive set of conditions for the period after it expires: Simpkins may not practise as a sole practitioner, sole manager or sole owner of an authorised body, nor in an unregulated organisation; may not be a partner or member of an LLP or alternative business structure; may not be a head of legal practice or compliance officer in any role; may not hold client money or be a signatory on any client account; and may not work as a solicitor other than in employment approved by the SRA. Either party may apply to vary the conditions.

No order was made as to costs. The ruling, filed with the Law Society in October 2026 as part of the tribunal’s published decisions, places the findings and the restrictions on the permanent public record.

Current Status

Simpkins’s suspension ran from 15 May 2026 for 18 months, with the layered conditions attaching on expiry. During the suspension he cannot practise at all; afterwards, he cannot hold client money, run a firm, or work unsupervised in any compliance capacity without the SRA’s approval and any variation the tribunal grants. The client account shortages found against the firm remain on the record through the published ruling.

Impact on Their Career/Life

For a sole practitioner who was his firm’s manager and both compliance officers, the conditions remove every role that made his career possible: sole practice, partnership, compliance leadership, and any authority over client money. The misconduct findings, the reported shortages and the misleading-information finding to the SRA’s investigator together mark the ruling as one of the more substantial client-account sanctions handed down by the tribunal in 2026.

Sources

• Law Society Gazette, “SDT decisions: 2 October 2026,” 2 October 2026 — source