Richard Stephen Davies

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

Richard Stephen Davies, a sole practitioner solicitor of 40 years' standing, faced multiple allegations relating to his probate and conveyancing practice. The Tribunal found proved that he undervalued the estate of Client A by up to £49,196.20, took costs of around £37,020 where only £16,800 was disclosed, took further costs of £6,540 two years after final accounts without a bill, paid a co-executor £5,000 inappropriately and failed to recover it. Dishonesty was found proved in respect of this conduct. It was also found proved that he made a false declaration to his insurer on 29 June 2017 by failing to disclose two LeO complaints, with dishonesty found. He failed to register titles, pay SDLT and Land Registry fees on numerous conveyancing matters, had accounting errors and longstanding inactive client balances, and retained over £14,000 from Client E's estate for years. Some allegations (the 1 September 2016 insurer declaration and Rule 29.12 reconciliations) were found not proved. The Tribunal found no exceptional circumstances and struck him off, ordering costs of £35,200. The hearing proceeded in the Respondent's absence.

Duties found breached:

• Not mislead third parties or opponents
• Non-discriminatory acceptance and cab-rank
• No conflict between current clients
• No improper use of client money
• Prompt accounting and return of money
• Not misrepresent regulated status

Aggravating factors:

• Dishonesty proved in two different types of misconduct
• Elements of misconduct deliberate, calculated and repeated over a period of time
• Misconduct perpetrated against clients who trusted the Respondent
• Breach of position of trust as executor
• Very experienced solicitor of 40 years
• Previous appearance before the Tribunal in 1988 including delays with registrations of title
• Considerable adverse impact on clients
• Lack of insight

Mitigating factors:

• Health condition confirmed by GP letter causing loss of concentration
• Advanced age and tiredness
• Respondent had contacted SRA seeking advice on closure of practice
• No client suffered loss in some respects per Respondent's account