Skip to main content
discipline 3 October 2026
‹ Browse decisions

Decision record

Richard Thomas Clegg

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
BodySolicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT)
Professionsolicitor
Case number11707/2017
Date01/01/2017
OutcomeStrike off

Allegation / charges

Breaches, Failures

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

SanctionStrike Off
CostsGBP 12,000
Dishonesty foundYes

Richard Thomas Clegg, sole director of GMS Law Limited, acted for Mrs LW in clinical negligence litigation. After the case settled, an expert (Professor JW) claimed unpaid cancellation fees and sued the firm. The Respondent defended the claim naming Mrs LW as the correct defendant without informing her, creating an actual own-interest conflict while continuing to act for her (allegation 1.1). Between February 2015 and March 2016 he misled Mrs LW by failing to give full and accurate information about the claim, giving her the false impression she was a party to the proceedings, seeking her 'instructions' for an appeal, and withholding that the firm's failure to notify the expert had caused the liability (allegation 1.2). The Tribunal found all allegations proved beyond reasonable doubt, including an express finding of dishonesty under the Ivey test. No exceptional circumstances were found. The Respondent was struck off the Roll and ordered to pay agreed costs of £12,000. His High Court appeal was dismissed.

Duties found breached:

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 and sole director/shareholder of the firm with total control
  • Material breach of obligation to protect public and maintain confidence in the profession

Mitigating factors:

  • No previous disciplinary matters / previously unblemished career
  • Single client and single episode
  • No financial detriment caused to the client
  • Some (though limited) insight demonstrated
  • Positive character evidence from Mr Dean
  • Not motivated by financial gain; may have paid client further monies if appeal succeeded

Duties engaged

Documents

Source: https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/case/11707/