Richard Anthony Stripe

• Application 9835-2007
• Admitted 1985
• Hearing 12 April 2010
• Reasons 18 May 2010

The SDT ordered that the respondent, of Manchester M2, should pay a fine of £15,000.

By virtue of his relationship with an introducer the respondent had acted and/or had continued to act when there was a conflict and/or significant risk of conflict of interests between the interests of the clients and his interests; he had failed to act in the best interests of clients in that he had caused his clients to enter into improper and/or unenforceable conditional fee agreements (CFAs), he had improperly recovered ‘success fees’ from his clients pursuant to the said CFAs, he had failed to provide any or adequate advice on the funding of claims generally, and he had failed to advise the clients fairly and openly with regard to the success fees; he had acted and/or had continued to act when there was a conflict and/or significant risk of conflict of interests between the interests of the clients and his interests by asserting that he was entitled to recover success fees from them when he was not so entitled; he had accepted introductions and referrals of business from other persons in breach of, and otherwise than in compliance with, the Solicitors Introduction and Referral Code 1990 contrary to rule 3 of the Solicitors Practice Rules 1990; contrary to rule 15 of the rules he had failed to give the information required to be given to clients in accordance with the Solicitors Costs Information and Client Care Code; and, being aware of rule 3 of the rules and the Solicitors Introduction and Referral Code (as amended) he had categorised payments as disbursements on a client ledger which were in fact payments of referral fees.

The SDT, having found all of the allegations to have been substantiated noted that errors had been made by the respondent and they were errors and omissions that a careful solicitor should not have made. The respondent had entrusted miners’ compensation scheme claims work to a junior fee earner and she had carried out the work. It was serious that inadequate costs information had been provided to clients. Clients were entitled to be put in a position where they had absolutely no doubt as to the nature of a solicitor’s costs and to be given a good idea of quantum. It was a serious mistake on the part of the respondent to tell his clients that they were entering into a conditional fee agreement when in fact it was a contingency fee agreement. Where the government had approved a schedule of fees to be paid to solicitors representing miners under the scheme it was clearly wrong for a success fee to be claimed, and indeed the propriety of a flat rate of success fee without any analysis of the risk could not be justified. Such success fee was deducted from the miner’s compensation, thereby reducing his entitlement. A court approved scheme was in place and that scheme had not permitted success fees. The charge of such fees was prejudicial to clients because they did not receive their full damages. The respondent had paid referral fees to a ‘claims farmer’. He had indicated that he had not believed them to be referral fees but it was absolutely clear that the ‘claims farmer’ had not undertaken £250 worth of work or, indeed, where the payment was split, £150 worth of work. The SDT simply did not understand how the respondent, when considering the fee paid to the ‘claims farmer’ split as to £150 for investigation and £100 to remain on the panel, could consider that the payment to remain on the panel could be anything other than a referral fee. The respondent had treated the payment to the ‘claims farmer’, and had referred to it, as a disbursement when clearly it was not a disbursement either in fact or in law. The SDT noted that the applicant did not make an allegation of dishonesty against the respondent.

The respondent had placed before the SDT a number of very impressive references, all of which attested to the respondent’s competence and integrity. The SDT gave the respondent credit for such support but also took into account the fact that he had not repaid to his clients more than a small percentage of the success fees he had charged. The SDT considered that it was both proportionate and appropriate to order the respondent to pay a substantial fine that would serve to indicate both to the public and to the profession as a whole that such conduct was to be regarded as seriously falling below the required standards.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs to be assessed if not agreed.