Decision record
Andrew Thomas Benson
Allegation / charges
Breaches, Solicitors' Accounts Rules
Findings — machine-extracted (anthropic-batch:claude-opus-4-8); verify against the decision
Andrew Thomas Benson, a solicitor and former partner at Byrne & Partners LLP, admitted four allegations including dishonesty: conducting entirely fictitious litigation for client Mr M from October 2010 to December 2013 (fabricating court orders, judgments, transcripts and correspondence, purporting some 14 hearings that never took place and impersonating counsel), causing improper client account withdrawals totalling £112,908.18 relating to clients M and E, falsifying documents for client E, and misleading the SRA Forensic Investigation Officer in a March 2014 interview. The Tribunal found all allegations proved. Despite significant mitigation, including health problems and genuine remorse, the Tribunal found no exceptional circumstances and, applying SRA v Sharma, struck the Respondent off the Roll of Solicitors and ordered him to pay costs of £39,191.40 (not to be enforced without leave, with liberty to apply for a Charging Order).
Duties found breached:
- Proper basis for allegations
- No improper communication with the court
- Non-discriminatory acceptance and cab-rank
- No conflict between current clients
Aggravating factors:
- Sophisticated and calculated dishonest course of conduct
- Conduct over a lengthy period (October 2010 to December 2013)
- Went to bizarre lengths to maintain fictitious litigation (including impersonating a QC on a conference call)
- Concealed misconduct from client to an extreme degree
- Gross breach of trust placed in him by client, client's parents' solicitors and another client
- Misled the SRA Forensic Investigation Officer
Mitigating factors:
- Previously long unblemished record
- Genuine insight and remorse and candid admissions
- Engaged with proceedings and appeared before the Tribunal
- Funds repaid to clients
- Misconduct limited to two particular clients
- Health issues (depression, stress, heavy drinking) that clouded judgement
- Did not act for personal financial benefit
- Obtained lowly alternative employment to support his family
Duties engaged
- Overriding duty to the court
- Proper basis for allegations
- No improper communication with the court
- Comply with and respect court orders
- Honesty
- No bribery or improper gifts
- Personal probity and fitness to practise
- Uphold public trust in the profession
- No unlawful discrimination or harassment
- Non-discriminatory acceptance and cab-rank
- No conflict between current clients
- Serve justice and improve the law