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

Alan Richard Birkbeck

  • Application 11559-2016
  • Admitted 2004
  • Hearing 21 March 2017
  • Reasons 26 April 2017

On 20 January 2015, the respondent was made bankrupt. He continued practising as a solicitor until 16 June 2015, in breach of principles 2, 5, 6 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2011.

In November 2015, the respondent allowed a custody record to state that he worked for a firm (PDS), which had never employed him, when representing a defendant, in breach of principles 2 and 6. In so doing, he had acted dishonestly.

In May to June 2015, the respondent had borrowed £8,250 from an individual he represented and had not repaid the money, in breach of principle 6.

The respondent had not replied to correspondence from the SRA requesting an explanation for his actions, in breach of principle 7.

The SDT was satisfied that there were no exceptional circumstances in the present case.

The appropriate sanction to reflect the seriousness of the misconduct, ensure the protection of the public and the protection of the reputation of the legal profession was to strike the respondent off the roll.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £3,453.