A consultant solicitor who received more than £7,000 directly from his client and provided misleading information about his client’s representation has been struck off the roll.
Richard Jefferies, admitted in 1989, admitted all the allegations against him. He was alleged to have requested and received money from his client directly into his personal bank account and/or in cash; to have undertaken reserved legal work and representation of a client as a solicitor in criminal defence proceedings other than through an SRA-authorised firm; and to have provided misleading information to the courts and CPS when he submitted a form stating his client was being represented by a firm.
Jefferies admitted his conduct in relation to the form was dishonest.
At the time of the misconduct, between September 2021 and December 2022, Jefferies worked as a consultant for seven different criminal firms.
Jefferies did not provide invoices or receipts to his client for any of the number of payments – varying from £500 to £2,250. He also did not provide the client with a retainer or any form of client care letter.
Read more
Though Jefferies was working for several different firms, he did not carry out the legal work for the client under any of their ‘supervisory umbrellas', a statement of agreed facts said. As he had not carried out the work as a registered sole practitioner either, the legal services provided were unauthorised, it added.
In a judgment on the agreed outcome, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found Jefferies' admissions were properly made and his misconduct was ‘serious’.
Jefferies’ actions ‘involved dishonesty, lack of integrity, the receipt of client money directly into the respondent’s personal bank account and/or in cash, and the provision of reserved legal services outside the protections afforded by an authorised practice,’ it added.
‘The misconduct was not isolated. It occurred over a period of approximately a year and included a misleading representation to the court and the Crown Prosecution Service as to Client A’s legal representation. It was conduct which the respondent knew, or ought reasonably to have known, was in material breach of his professional obligations to protect the public and the reputation of the legal profession.’
Agreeing with the proposed strike-off, the SDT said it was the ‘appropriate and proportionate sanction’. Jefferies was also ordered to pay £22,000 costs.
