Richard Michael John Smith

• Application 10350-2009
• Admitted 1985
• Hearing 11 March 2010
• Reasons 14 May 2010

The SDT ordered that the respondent, of Romsey, Hampshire SO51, should be struck off the roll.

By failing to comply with decisions of adjudicators made on 8 September 2008, 17 October 2008 and 20 October 2008, the respondent had behaved in a way likely to diminish the trust which the public placed in him or the legal profession, contrary to rule 1.06 of the Solicitors Code of Conduct 2007; in respect of complaints made by Mr L, Mrs T and Mr O and the investigations which had ensued, the respondent had failed to deal with the Legal Complaints Service and the Solicitors Regulation Authority in an open, prompt and cooperative way, contrary to rule 20.03 of the code; he had failed to deliver to the SRA his accountant’s reports for the three periods ending 31 March 2007, 31 March 2008 and 30 September 2008, and a ceased to hold report for the period ending 23 December 2008, contrary to section 34 of the Solicitors Act 1974; he had failed to keep his books of account properly written up, contrary to rule 32 of the Solicitors Accounts Rules 1998; he had withdrawn monies from client account other than as permitted by rule 22 of the rules; he had failed to remedy breaches of the rules promptly upon discovery, contrary to rule 7 thereof; he had dishonestly used a client’s monies for his own purposes, contrary to rules 1.02 and 1.06 of the code; he had dishonestly used clients’ money for the purposes of other clients, contrary to rules 1.02 and 1.06 of the code; he had dishonestly provided misleading information to an officer of the SRA during the course of an investigation, contrary to rules 1.02 and 1.06 and 20.03 of the code; and he had practised without there being in force the requisite indemnity insurance cover, contrary to rules 4 and 5 of the Solicitors Indemnity Insurance Rules 2008.

The allegations before the SDT on the present occasion were of an extremely serious nature, particularly those in regard to Mrs C and the manipulation of her funds. In themselves, those allegations were extremely serious quite apart from the other matters that had been found proved by the SDT, and the previous findings made on 13 March 2008. The SDT had therefore concluded that the respondent should not be allowed to continue in practice.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £13,109, such order not to be enforced without the consent of the SDT.