Skip to main content
discipline 4 October 2026
‹ Browse decisions

Decision record

Andrew Thomas Benson

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
BodySolicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT)
Professionsolicitor
Case number11404/2015
Date01/01/2015
OutcomeStrike off

Allegation / charges

Breaches, Solicitors' Accounts Rules

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

SanctionStrike Off
CostsGBP 39,191
Dishonesty foundYes

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:

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

Documents

Source: https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/case/11404/