“Ashamed and broken” ex-lawyer jailed for keeping firm afloat with client cash

Thursday 13 December 2018

A former solicitor who tried to “trade his way through his problems” has been jailed after using nearly £100,000 worth of his clients’ money to plug holes in his failing business.

The Royal Court heard yesterday that Kevin Robert Manning (62) committed the offences during a nine-year period where he tried to cope with his financial difficulties, alcoholism and spiralling mental health issues by using client cash to “shore up" his business.

In total, Manning admitted 22 counts of dishonestly moving his clients' money, and was sentenced to three-and-a-half years in prison for his offences which HM Solicitor General Mark Temple described as “prolonged, pervasive and serious."

The Court heard that Manning ran a firm called K R Manning and Co. where he “supplied legal services” as a solicitor mainly managing the affairs of those who are incapable of doing so themselves. One of Manning’s clients, whose money he used, was a Jersey-based charitable trust.

Pictured: Solicitor General Mark Temple acted for the prosecution in this case.

The Solicitor General, summing up the case for the Court, explained that Manning moved money out of his clients’ accounts, using those funds to "pay transactions or execute services” or simply “to shore up [his] ailing practice."

The individual amounts of client money involved, ranged from £4,000 up to £47,500. 

Manning was suspended from practising as a lawyer in 2014 when the Solicitor General at the time began what became an extensive investigation into the ex-solicitor’s affairs. 

The Solicitor General explained that the investigation into Manning’s accounts was particularly complicated due to the poor maintenance of his records, which he described as being “reconstituted”, “inaccurately labelled” and “back-dated”.

Pictured: The Court heard that the former lawyer had entirely mismanaged his accounts which were "inaccurately labelled" and "back-dated."

The prosecution also argued that Manning could have covered a "substantial portion" of his firm's debts with cash acquired from the sale of his house or car or other money personally available to him, but that he "specifically elected not to do so."

Recommending a prison sentence of five years, the Solicitor General emphasised to the Court that Manning’s clients “were vulnerable adults dependent on the funds” as well as a charity, and that “due to the length of time over which the fraudulent conversions were committed as well as its frequency and complexity, no one victim can now be properly compensated.” 

Later, the Solicitor General mentioned that, due to Manning’s total lack of business assets, “it is hoped that the losses will be compensated via a fund set up by the Law Society."

Manning’s lawyer, Defence Advocate Estelle Burns, communicated that her client “fully acknowledges” that trying to trade his way out of debt was “a most foolish course of action, and one that he now bitterly regrets." "At the time he felt he had no other option," she explained.

In her submissions to the Court, Advocate Burns tried to contextualise this “foolish” course of action by detailing how personal problems and worsening “alcohol misuse” as well as Manning’s poor mental health affected his decision-making.

“This is not a case whereby Mr Manning acted in a cunning manner or out of greed to fund a luxurious lifestyle… As business got worse, so did Mr Manning’s alcoholism, and his desperation and bad management spiralled into nothing short of chaos,” Advocate Burns reasoned.

The Defence Advocate argued that the Crown’s recommendation of five years’ imprisonment was too high, urging the Court to consider that her client “appears before you today nothing short of an ashamed and broken man."

The Bailiff, Sir William Bailhache, presided over the case, sitting with Jurats Nicolle, Crill, Thomas, Ronge and Dulake, who were assembled in the 'Superior Number', allowing them to decide on sentences in excess of four years. However, in the end, Manning was handed three-and-a-half years.

Handing down the sentence, the Bailiff acknowledged that the offending amounted to a “significant breach of trust”, but also noted the personal difficulty that Manning had endured during this time, which he termed “a personal disaster” for the ex-solicitor.

“He has come up with a number of references [to] show that his life has fallen apart during the period in question. On a personal level, the Court can have much sympathy with him”, the Bailiff explained. 

However, Sir William added: “We cannot get away from the fact that these are significant dishonest offences” before sentencing Manning.