Skip to main content
discipline 3 October 2026
‹ Browse decisions

Decision record

Barry Rhodes

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
BodySolicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT)
Professionsolicitor
Case number6878/1995
Date01/01/1995
OutcomeStrike off

Allegation / charges

Client Money, Failures, Solicitors' Accounts Rules

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

SanctionStrike Off
CostsGBP 3,818
Dishonesty foundNo

Barry Rhodes, a sole practitioner admitted in 1972, faced nine allegations of conduct unbefitting a solicitor arising from a Law Society intervention into his practice. The Investigation Accountant found incomplete books with false entries and a minimum shortfall of £256,260.96 in client funds, including £141,713.96 improperly transferred for his own use and £114,547.71 transferred purportedly for unjustified costs. He also failed to comply with an SCB Direction to pay £250 compensation to a client, took excessive/unbilled costs from an estate, and failed to account for interest or obtain remuneration/interest certificates. The respondent did not attend but submitted admissions. The Tribunal found all allegations substantiated, noting he ran his practice as if client money were his own, and ordered him struck off with costs of £3,817.75, directing the SCB Direction be enforceable as a High Court order. No express finding of dishonesty was recorded.

Duties found breached:

Aggravating factors:

  • Minimum shortfall of £256,260.96 in clients' funds
  • Numerous false entries in the books of account
  • £141,713.96 improperly transferred from Client Account for his own use and benefit
  • £114,547.71 improperly transferred purportedly for costs with no bills delivered
  • Claims against the Compensation Fund totalling £57,491.16
  • Used clients' money to keep his practice going

Mitigating factors:

  • Admitted responsibility and cooperated to some extent with the Investigation Accountant
  • Claimed no client would ultimately lose money and denied personal benefit
  • Pressure of work as a sole practitioner running a large criminal practice
  • Expressed deep regret and acknowledged hardship caused to his family

Duties engaged

Documents

Source: https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/case/6878/