Vieonce Prentice
Solicitor
567725

Decision - Prosecution

Outcome: Referral to Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal

Outcome date: 17 September 2025

Published date: 19 February 2026

Firm details

Firm or organisation at time of matters giving rise to outcome

Name: Jirehouse Partners LLP

Address(es): 7 John Street, London WC1N 2ES

Firm ID: 592501

Firm or organisation at date of publication

Name: Prentice & Co (Non-SRA regulated Entity)

Address(es):

Firm ID:

Outcome details

This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

Reasons/basis

This notification relates to a Decision to lodge Disciplinary Proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. This is an independent Tribunal which will reach its own decision after considering all the evidence, including any evidence put forward by the Solicitor. The Tribunal has certified that there is a case to answer in respect of allegations which are or include that:-  whilst the Respondent was in practice as a Solicitor at Jirehouse, Jirehouse Partners LLP and Jirehouse Trustees Ltd ('Jirehouse'):

1. Failed to assure himself that client monies were held in the client account prior to sending a letter to the client which assured the client the funds were secure; 
2. Allowed his hours on a matter to be inaccurately recorded and in doing so, provided information to a client which he knew or ought to have known was misleading; 
3. In or around November 2016, he made two witness statements provided to the High Court, in which he represented that Jirehouse Capital Finance Limited was solvent, which he knew or ought to have known were misleading. 
4. From 3 January 2019 onwards, he failed to ensure the safety of client funds re a matter and made no independent inquiries as to the issues regarding the return of client monies despite being aware of concerns surrounding the whereabouts of these monies;
5. During a recorded interview on 11 June 2019 concerning a matter, he told a KC that he had not been aware that monies  had been paid into the client account of Jirehouse Trustees Limited in April or November 2018, when he knew or ought to have known that his explanation was misleading.
6. On 11 – 14 and 20 – 21 July 2022, in his oral evidence to the High Court, he gave evidence concerning his knowledge of the control of the Esquiline companies which he knew or ought to have known was inaccurate;
7. Following his being alerted re the control of the Esquiline companies on 15 March 2019, he failed to report the serious misconduct to the SRA.

The allegations are subject to a Hearing before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal and are as yet unproven.