Skip to main content
discipline 3 October 2026
‹ Browse decisions

Decision record

Richard Gregory Barca

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
BodySolicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT)
Professionsolicitor
Case number11816/2018
Date01/01/2018
OutcomeFine

Allegation / charges

Breaches

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

SanctionFine
FineGBP 20,000
CostsGBP 26,000
Dishonesty foundNo

Richard Gregory Barca, an experienced solicitor, admitted three allegations: acting in an own interest conflict by loaning his vulnerable client Mrs JWB £27,000 at 60% annual interest secured by charge over her home (ultimately benefiting over £49,000 and taking unfair advantage); making a misleading claim in a witness statement served in litigation; and acting for Mr K in litigation on a third party's instructions without confirming with Mr K. An allegation of dishonesty was withdrawn by the Applicant; the Tribunal found lack of integrity but made no finding of dishonesty. The Tribunal found culpability high on allegations 1.1 and 1.3 and low on 1.2. It imposed a fine of £20,000 and ordered agreed costs of £26,000.

Duties found breached:

Aggravating factors:

  • Conduct in relation to Mrs JWB continued for almost 2 years with continued benefit from 60% interest
  • Client was vulnerable and at risk of losing her home and livelihood
  • Respondent benefited by over £49,000 in interest without ensuring independent legal advice
  • Failure to deal promptly with correspondence from R Solicitors causing unnecessary costs
  • Ought reasonably to have known conduct breached obligations to protect public and reputation of profession
  • Previous appearance before Tribunal on 28 May 2015 (Reprimand, costs £2,600) also for breach of Principle 6

Mitigating factors:

  • Respondent was wholly contrite
  • Number of good character references
  • Cooperated with regulator and proceedings
  • Made admissions
  • Motivated in part by desire to help Mrs JWB keep her home
  • Misleading witness statement was a careless mistake, not deliberate; genuinely believed authority existed to act for Mr K

Duties engaged

Other decisions involving this respondent

  • 12486/2023 2024-05-09 · SDT · England & Wales · Fine

Matched by respondent name — may include a different person with the same name.

Documents

Source: https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/case/11816/