Richard Thomas Clegg

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

Richard Thomas Clegg, sole director of GMS Law Limited, faced two allegations arising from his handling of an expert's (Professor JW) unpaid cancellation fees in clinical negligence proceedings where he acted for Mrs LW. The firm failed to notify the expert that the trial was no longer required, incurring cancellation fees. When the expert sued the firm, Clegg filed a defence naming his own client Mrs LW as the correct defendant without informing her, while continuing to act for her (allegation 1.1, admitted in part). He also misled Mrs LW between February 2015 and March 2016 by failing to give her full and accurate information about the claim, giving her the impression she was a party to proceedings, seeking her 'instructions' to appeal, and withholding the basis of the claim and the judge's adverse comments about the firm (allegation 1.2). The Tribunal found both allegations proved beyond reasonable doubt, including an express finding of dishonesty under the Ivey test, as well as breaches of Principles 2, 3, 4 and 6 and Outcomes 1.1, 3.4 and 1.16. Finding no exceptional circumstances, the Tribunal ordered Clegg struck off the Roll and to pay agreed costs of £12,000. His subsequent High Court appeal was dismissed.

Duties found breached:

• Honesty
• Integrity
• Act in the client's best interests
• Act only on proper, lawful instructions
• No conflict between current clients

Aggravating factors:

• Proven dishonesty
• Conduct was deliberate, repeated and continued over a period of time
• Reinforced misleading impression both orally and in correspondence
• Experienced solicitor, sole director and shareholder of the firm with total control over the conduct
• Material breach of obligation to protect the public and maintain confidence in the profession

Mitigating factors:

• Single client matter and single episode in an otherwise unblemished career
• No previous disciplinary matters
• No financial detriment caused to the client
• Some insight demonstrated (though limited)
• Positive character evidence from Mr Dean
• Not motivated by financial gain; may have made additional payment to client if appeal succeeded