Skip to main content
discipline 4 October 2026
‹ Browse decisions

Decision record

Richard Markham Thompson

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
BodySolicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT)
Professionsolicitor
Case number11495/2016
Date01/01/2016
OutcomeFine, Strike off

Allegation / charges

Breaches, Client Money, Failures, Solicitors' Accounts Rules

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

SanctionStrike Off
FineGBP 10,000
CostsGBP 17,293
Dishonesty foundYes

Two partners of T & L Solicitors faced allegations of improper transfers of client money to office account to prop up the firm and pay personal tax liabilities to HMRC. The First Respondent, Richard Markham Thompson, was found to have made dishonest transfers (including £53,000, £20,000, a duplicate £27,322.81, and £6,000) and was struck off the Roll, with express findings of dishonesty under the Twinsectra test on allegations 1.2-1.5. He was ordered to pay costs of £17,293.18. The Second Respondent admitted strict-liability SAR breaches (no dishonesty alleged against him), was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay costs of £5,764.39. Total costs of £23,057.57 were split 75/25 by culpability.

Duties found breached:

Aggravating factors:

  • Proven dishonesty involving improper use of client money
  • Serious and continuing misconduct that was deliberate and calculated
  • Personal gain - use of client money to pay personal tax liability to HMRC
  • Abuse of position of trust as guardian of client money
  • Extensive experience of the solicitor who knew conduct breached obligations

Mitigating factors:

  • Previously unblemished career (First Respondent)
  • Cooperation during investigation
  • Repayment of improperly taken funds (mitigation only)
  • For Second Respondent: reliance on First Respondent, clear insight, substantial personal financial contribution (£57,000) to restore client balances, no further breaches under his stewardship, cooperation throughout

Duties engaged

Documents

Source: https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/case/11495/