Skip to main content
discipline 3 October 2026
‹ Browse decisions

Decision record

Andrew John Davies

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
BodySolicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT)
Professionsolicitor
Case number11484/2016
Date01/01/2016
OutcomeStrike off

Allegation / charges

Breaches, Failures, Solicitors' Accounts Rules

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

SanctionStrike Off
CostsGBP 65,867
Dishonesty foundYes

Andrew John Davies, senior and only equity partner at Robert Meaton & Co, was found to have committed extensive misconduct including transferring client mortgage redemption monies (£270,398.17 and £205,714.20) to his personal account by creating fictitious bankline User IDs, causing a minimum client account shortage of £833,450.04, failing to keep proper accounting records, and repeatedly forging and fabricating documents (bank statements, building regulation certificates, counsel's opinion, and emails) to mislead clients, chambers, and the SRA's Forensic Investigation Officer. The Tribunal found dishonesty proved (Twinsectra combined test) on allegations 2.5, 2.6, 2.7 and 2.9. Allegation 2.8 was not proved because it was pleaded as misleading 'chambers and his employees' rather than 'and/or'. The Respondent did not attend and did not engage. He was struck off the Roll and ordered to pay costs of £65,867.40 (of which £53,728.40 related to forensic investigation).

Duties found breached:

Aggravating factors:

  • Motivation for personal financial gain
  • Actions planned, deliberate, calculated and repeated
  • Concealment of wrongdoing and going to significant efforts to cover his tracks
  • Breach of position of trust as senior and only equity partner and co-executor
  • Misconduct escalating and would have continued had he not been stopped
  • Theft, forgery and fabrication of evidence involved
  • Substantial financial losses to clients and claims against the compensation fund
  • Misled employees, clients and Regulator

Duties engaged

Documents

Source: https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/case/11484/