Richard James Burley (J)

Findings — machine-extracted (anthropic-batch:claude-opus-4-8); verify against the decision

Richard James Burley, a sole practitioner trading as Consumer Credit Litigation Solicitors and Burleys Solicitors, was found to have committed numerous breaches arising from his firm's overwhelming financial and operational dependence on claims management company CARTEL, including allowing CARTEL staff to control the firm's bank accounts, failing to act in clients' best interests (notably failing to secure ATE insurance), conflicts of interest, improper referral arrangements, costs information failures, and failure to manage the firm effectively. Most seriously, the Tribunal found he acted dishonestly (applying the Twinsectra test) by submitting false applications to the SRA for sole practitioner approval and a practising certificate, and a professional indemnity insurance proposal to Prime Professions, all in the name of Joanne Joyce without her knowledge or consent (forging her signature), and by attempting to transfer client files to the unrecognised firm Claim Central Solicitors. Applying SRA v Sharma, the Tribunal found no exceptional circumstances and struck him off the Roll, ordering costs of £60,258.06, and made enforcement orders for outstanding IPS awards.

Duties found breached:

• No improper communication with the court
• Advise on alternatives, settlement and outcome
• No conflict between current clients
• Firm governance, systems and compliance
• No baseless or threatened misconduct report

Aggravating factors:

• Dishonesty found in submitting false applications and forging Joanne Joyce's signature
• Used another solicitor's professional qualification without knowledge or consent
• Caused clients, staff and Joanne Joyce to suffer distress
• Allowed claims management company (CARTEL) to control firm's bank accounts
• Firm financially reliant on CARTEL with over £3 million borrowed
• Failed to engage with the Tribunal and did not attend hearing
• Attempted to transfer files to a firm not recognised by SRA

Mitigating factors:

• No previous disciplinary matters
• Relatively young and could potentially gain alternative employment