Decision record
Richard Charles Boyd
Allegation / charges
Breaches, Failures
Findings — machine-extracted (anthropic-batch:claude-opus-4-8); verify against the decision
Richard Charles Boyd, a partner (later sole practitioner) at North Yorkshire Law, was found to have improperly transferred up to £37,677.60 from client account to office account across seven probate matters on 27 February 2020 to address the firm's financial difficulties, without notifying clients or providing bills. He falsely told an executor client that taking costs before discussion was 'perfectly normal'. After his partnership dissolved and the firm lost SRA authorisation, he failed to disclose to his PII insurers that the SRA had told him he was not authorised, and made three untruthful/misleading statements to insurers about his authorisation status. The Tribunal made express findings of dishonesty on Principle 4 for all four proved allegations. A recklessness allegation was dismissed. Given the high culpability and serious dishonesty, and finding no exceptional circumstances, the Tribunal struck him off the Roll. Costs were assessed at £32,500 but no order as to costs was made due to his very limited means (recently discharged bankrupt, reliant on pension).
Duties found breached:
- No improper communication with the court
- Honesty
- Integrity
- Not mislead third parties or opponents
- Uphold public trust in the profession
- Act in the client's best interests
- No improper use of client money
- Not misrepresent regulated status
Aggravating factors:
- Deliberate, calculated and repeated misconduct
- Misleading of insurers continued over many months
- Targeting of vulnerable probate estate funds
- Concealment from estate representatives and insurers
- Aware he was in material breach in all aspects
- Browbeating client Mrs Mainprize into agreeing to an already-made transfer on a false pretext
Mitigating factors:
- Monies eventually returned to client account (no client lost money)
- Cooperated with the SRA investigation
- Made some admissions (admitted Accounts Rules breaches)
- Unblemished regulatory history over long career
- Glowing character references
Duties engaged
- No improper communication with the court
- Honesty
- Integrity
- Not mislead third parties or opponents
- No bribery or improper gifts
- Personal probity and fitness to practise
- Uphold public trust in the profession
- Act in the client's best interests
- Advise objectively, not a mere conduit
- No improper use of client money
- Not misrepresent regulated status