A disability rights campaigner has been struck off the roll of solicitors after it was found he misled the Solicitors Regulation Authority about his financial means.
During disciplinary proceedings in 2023, Christopher Fry had denied recently disposing of any asset worth more than £1,000 as the SRA tried to establish his means. But subsequent investigations found this signed declaration had been false, and in fact he had recently received money from the sale of a house, with further funds potentially available to him in the future.
Fry continued to argue before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal that he had not wilfully misled anyone and that he believed he had no assets at the time of answering the SRA’s question.
But the tribunal ruled he had been dishonest and motivated by his own financial advantage. He was struck off and ordered to pay almost £33,000 in costs.
The tribunal’s decision, which Fry is able to appeal within 21 days of publication, brings to an end a career of more than 20 years during which time Fry set up his own firm and in 2017 successfully represented a wheelchair user in the Supreme Court after they had been denied entry to a bus.
Read more
The tribunal heard that Fry was fined £9,000 in 2023 for allowing inaccurate information to be submitted to insurance brokers and allowing a client account shortage to build at his Nottingham-based firm. Based on the information he gave to the SRA about his financial means, the tribunal had ruled that a £35,000 costs order should not be immediately enforced.
Fry had explicitly answered ‘no’ when asked if he had disposed of any assets in the previous three years, but in fact a property bought in his sole name had been sold in December 2022 for £555,000. Payments of £5,000 had been made to Fry and his then-wife and after a £47,000 payment made to his wife’s solicitors, the remainder was held by those solicitors pending the conclusion of divorce proceedings.
When contacted by an SRA costs recovery officer, Fry said his ex-wife was claiming the whole balance and so he was right not to declare it as an asset. The tribunal found his initial response had been false and misleading and he had failed to explain it subsequently.
The ruling added: ‘His conduct was planned as a deliberate omission to conceal the sale of his property and the proceed of [the property] sale. He had deliberately misled the tribunal and the SRA with regard to his means.’
