Skip to main content
discipline 3 October 2026
‹ Browse decisions

Decision record

Phillip Leonard George Avery

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
BodySolicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT)
Professionsolicitor
Case number7109/1996
Date01/01/1996
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
Suspension12 months
CostsGBP 3,500
Dishonesty foundYes

Two partners of Avery Barrie & Co. were found guilty of conduct unbefitting a solicitor across 15 allegations involving extensive breaches of the Solicitors Investment Business Rules 1990 and Solicitors Accounts Rules 1991, including utilising clients' funds for their own and others' purposes. A minimum client account shortage of £113,641.71 was identified with no explanation offered. No dishonesty was alleged or found. Mr Avery, the finance partner with primary accounting responsibility and a prior 1987 disciplinary record for similar failures, was struck off and ordered to pay £3,500 costs. The second respondent, with considerably less culpability, was suspended for one year and ordered to pay £1,494.66 costs.

Duties found breached:

Aggravating factors:

  • Prior disciplinary finding in 1987 against Avery for similar book-keeping/accounts failures
  • Very large client account shortage (minimum £113,641.71) with no explanation offered
  • Firm had been severely rebuked in 1994 following earlier monitoring visits revealing breaches
  • Compensation Fund grants totalling £183,713.44 paid out with no recoveries

Mitigating factors:

  • No dishonesty alleged or found
  • Health problems (Avery)
  • Difficulties with staff, cashier, accountants and computerised accounting system
  • Respondents replaced some cash shortages from own resources
  • Second respondent joined existing practice, lacked training, worked in a vacuum with lower culpability
  • Second respondent's cooperation and apology

Duties engaged

Documents

Source: https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/case/7109/