Richard Gregory Barca

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

Richard Barca, an experienced solicitor and COFA/MLCO at Wilson Barca LLP, faced two allegations: (1.1) allowing misleading submissions to be made on his behalf during a January 2019 SDT hearing about lending money to clients, advanced on the basis of dishonesty or alternatively recklessness; and (1.2) entering into financial arrangements with clients where there was an own interest conflict or significant risk of one. The Tribunal found allegation 1.1 proved only in relation to one misleading submission ('nothing of a similar nature has arisen') concerning loans to Clients P, I and J, amounting to a breach of Principle 6, but dismissed the alleged breaches of Outcomes 5.1/5.2 and Principles 1 and 2, and expressly dismissed the dishonesty and recklessness allegations. Allegation 1.2 was found proved (significant risk of own interest conflict re Clients A, B, C, K and M, breaching Outcome 3.4 and Principle 6) but the alleged lack of integrity (Principle 2) was not found. The Tribunal noted Barca was motivated to help clients but also by possible personal gain, and that no actual conflict or direct client harm arose. Given his prior similar 2019 matter, a fine in band 4 of £30,000 was imposed, plus £20,000 costs. No dishonesty or lack of integrity was found.

Duties found breached:

• No conflict between current clients
• Proper basis for allegations

Aggravating factors:

• Previous appearance before the Tribunal in 2019 for similar money-lending/conflict misconduct (fined £20,000)
• Prior reprimand in 2015
• Deliberate, calculated and repeated conduct
• Very experienced solicitor who ought to have known better, particularly after the 2019 proceedings
• Some transactions occurred only months after the January 2019 hearing
• Motivated in part by possibility of personal gain

Mitigating factors:

• Motivated by genuine desire to assist clients in financial difficulty who could have lost homes/businesses
• No direct harm to clients; clients gave supportive evidence
• Did not profit from the misconduct (in many transactions was out of pocket)
• Co-operation with the investigation
• Positive character evidence and testimonials
• Some matters relied upon were known to the SRA at the time of the 2019 proceedings but not pursued then

⚠ figures not found verbatim in the source were dropped: ["review_dishonesty_finding_cue_present"]