Richard Anthony Barnett & Another

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

The SRA brought numerous allegations against Richard Anthony Barnett (First Respondent, senior partner, 98% equity) and a second partner (2% equity) arising from the firm Barnetts Solicitors accepting and misusing £4,861,399.33 advanced by the Axiom Legal Financing Fund Master under a Litigation Funding Agreement. Funds were used for general overheads, repaying RBS borrowing and other unauthorised purposes rather than 'Eligible Legal Expenses', were not paid into client account, and the firm acted in conflict (acting for Axiom/Tangerine while being a borrower). The Tribunal made express findings of dishonesty against the First Respondent on many allegations (misuse and acceptance of funds, misappropriation of MV Rena monies, false representations re £2m 'exceptional income', SAR breaches, conflicts, misleading PII insurers, and providing false information to the SRA). He was struck off; his appeal to the High Court was dismissed ([2016] EWHC 1160 (Admin)). The Second Respondent was found to have acted without integrity and recklessly (no dishonesty found against him) and was suspended for 6 months with subsequent practice conditions. Costs of £408,407.22 (subject to detailed assessment) were apportioned 85% to the First Respondent and 15% to the Second Respondent, with interim payments of £115,000 and £20,000 respectively.

Duties found breached:

• Act in the client's best interests
• Cooperate openly with regulators
• Firm governance, systems and compliance
• Integrity
• No conflict between current clients
• No improper use of client money
• Non-discriminatory acceptance and cab-rank
• Not misrepresent regulated status
• Uphold public trust in the profession

Aggravating factors:

• Misconduct continued over a period of time
• Loan monies (over £7m including facilitation fee) never repaid
• Substantial harm - millions of pounds belonging to the Fund lost
• Considerable damage to reputation of the profession with significant publicity
• First Respondent: numerous serious breaches with multiple findings of dishonesty

Mitigating factors:

• No previous disciplinary matters against either Respondent
• Second Respondent made early admissions (SAR breaches and lack of integrity on conflict allegations)
• Second Respondent was not the instigator/driver of the misconduct and was misled by the First Respondent
• Single episode in otherwise unblemished careers
• Second Respondent showed some insight and good current employment/supervision