Decisions and interventions: 11 September 2026

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal ordered that the respondent should pay a fine of £15,000.

On 4 February 2017, the respondent had driven a motor vehicle after consuming alcohol in excess of the legal limit, contrary to section 5(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.

He had failed promptly to report to the SRA his conviction for that offence, thereby breaching principles 6 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2011 and failing to achieve outcome 10.3 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011.

On 24 December 2019, he had driven a motor vehicle after consuming alcohol in excess of the legal limit, contrary to section 5(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. 

He had failed promptly to report to the SRA his conviction for that offence, thereby breaching principles 1 and 2 of the SRA Principles 2019 and paragraph 7(6)(a) of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs.

On 19 December 2020, he had: (i) driven a motor vehicle after consuming alcohol in excess of the legal limit, contrary to section 5(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988; (ii) driven a vehicle while disqualified from holding or obtaining a licence, contrary to section 103(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988; (iii) driven a motor vehicle without a certificate of insurance in place for such use, contrary to section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988; (iv) been found to be in possession of cocaine, a controlled drug of class A in contravention of section 5(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, contrary to section 5(2) of and Schedule 4 to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971; and (v) failed promptly to report to the SRA his conviction for the offences committed on 19 December 2020, thereby breaching principles 1, 2 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019 and paragraph 7(6)(a) of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs. 

On 12 December 2023, he had been drunk and disorderly in a public place, contrary to section 91(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, thereby breaching principle 2 of the SRA Principles 2019.

All allegations were admitted in full.

The respondent bore full personal responsibility for his conduct, which was aggravated by the repeated nature of his offending. 

To his credit, the respondent was now alcohol-free and was taking active steps to remain so. 

While it had plainly been open to the SDT to impose a period of suspension on the respondent, it had not taken that course. It had been satisfied that he was genuinely remorseful; that his offending was rooted in a period of serious alcohol dependency now firmly in the past; and that the steps he had since taken towards recovery were both meaningful and sustained. In those circumstances, the SDT had adopted a compassionate approach, namely that the public interest would be adequately served without the imposition of a sanction that would, in all likelihood, have brought an otherwise unblemished professional career to an end.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £10,688.

The SDT ordered that the respondent should be struck off the roll. 

While practising in partnership and subsequently as a sole practitioner at Bennett Richmond Solicitors, the respondent had, from June 2022 to April 2023, made or allowed to be made improper withdrawals in a sum equal to or less than £13,740 from five client matter ledgers, resulting in a minimum shortage on the firm’s client account for that sum, and in doing so had breached principles 2, 4 and 5 of the SRA Principles, paragraph 4 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs, and rules 4.3 and 5.1 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2019. The respondent had failed to replace the minimum cash shortage outlined above promptly, or at all, thereby breaching principles 2 and 5, and rule 6.1 of the rules. 

Between October 2012 and July 2022, the respondent had failed to notify the executors of the firm’s costs on four probate matters prior to transferring funds from the firm’s client to office account. He had thereby breached principles 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011; failed to achieve outcome 11.1 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011 and breached rules 17.2 and 20.1 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011; and he had breached principles 2, 4 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019; paragraph 1.2 of the code, and rules 4.3 and 5.1 of the 2019 rules. He had acted dishonestly prior to 2019. 

From December 2015 to April 2023, he had caused or allowed the firm to overcharge the estates of Client D and Client E by £9,624.98 and £9,769.13 respectively, thereby breaching principles 2, 4, 6 and 10 of the 2011 Principles; and breaching principles 2, 4, 5, and 7 of the 2019 Principles and paragraph 4.2 of the code. He had acted dishonestly prior to 2019. 

The parties had invited the SDT to deal with the allegations against the respondent in accordance with the statement of agreed facts and outcome annexed to the judgment.

The SDT had reviewed all the material before it and was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the respondent’s admissions had been properly made. 

He had caused harm to the firm’s clients who were the true beneficiaries in probate proceedings. 

The only appropriate and proportionate sanction, agreed by the parties, was to strike the respondent off the roll. His poor health had been noted, but that had not been advanced as an exceptional circumstance sufficient to make striking-off a disproportionate sanction. 

The respondent had been declared bankrupt by an order dated 11 September 2025. 

There was no order for costs.