Chesterfield firm BRM Solicitors could repay up to £89,000 to former miners after being taken to task by the Solicitors Regulation Authority for its handling of government compensation claims.

BRM partner Peter James McGowan has appeared before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal after admitting a number of misconduct charges, while partners Jeremy Christopher Rice, Neil Anthony Brown and Rodney Alan Shiers admitted a number of charges and were reprimanded. Rice has since retired from the partnership.

The charges relate to BRM’s referral arrangements with Vendside, the claims management arm of the Union of Democratic Mineworkers; Walker & Co, a company tied to Vendside; now defunct claims management company Sureclaim; and Doncaster law firm Beresfords.

In a regulatory settlement agreement (RSA) with the SRA in December, BRM agreed to reimburse all clients who had not already been repaid deductions under BRM’s agreement with Vendside, to which it paid £89,000 for referrals.

McGowan, Rice, Brown and Shiers admitted charges of acting in conflict of interest between the interests of their clients, their own interests and the interests of Vendside; failing to give any or adequate advice to clients on referral agreements with Vendside; accepting instructions and referrals from other persons in breach of solicitors’ rules; failing to decline to enter into an agreement with Vendside; and entering into agreements with non-solicitors who solicited or received contingency fees.

McGowan also admitted failing to give sufficient information to clients about costs and/or the funding of claims generally.

BRM said the case was different to miners’ compensation claims previously before the SRA, and there was no allegation of dishonesty, but the RSA had involved technical and/or timing breaches. It said the tribunal recognised that as soon as any problem had been identified, BRM had tried to put it right.

BRM said the ‘tribunal [was] impressed by the frankness and integrity of Mr McGowan’, and ‘in every case in which BRM paid a referral fee (from their own funds) the client had previously been informed about it in writing and not a single client objected to or complained about it.’ BRM said the tribunal found that no client had been prejudiced.