Richard Anthony Barnett & Another

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

Richard Anthony Barnett (First Respondent, senior partner) and a Second Respondent (partner) faced SRA allegations arising from their firm (Barnetts Solicitors) accepting and misusing £4,861,399.33 from the Axiom Legal Financing Fund, contrary to the terms of a Litigation Funding Agreement. The Tribunal found the First Respondent acted dishonestly on numerous allegations (misuse of funds, misappropriation of MV Rena monies, conflicts of interest, misleading PII insurers, misleading the SRA, and misrepresentations to secure funding) and struck him off the Roll. The Second Respondent was found to have acted without integrity and recklessly on limited matters but NOT dishonestly; he was suspended for 6 months with post-suspension practising conditions. Costs of £408,407.22 (claimed) were ordered subject to detailed assessment, apportioned 85% to the First Respondent and 15% to the Second Respondent, with interim payments of £115,000 (First Respondent) and £20,000 (Second Respondent). The First Respondent's appeal to the High Court was dismissed ([2016] EWHC 1160 (Admin)).

Duties found breached:

• Honesty
• Integrity
• Not mislead third parties or opponents
• Uphold public trust in the profession
• Act in the client's best interests
• Non-discriminatory acceptance and cab-rank
• No conflict between current clients
• No improper use of client money
• Firm governance, systems and compliance
• Cooperate openly with regulators
• Self-report to the regulator
• Good faith and courtesy to colleagues
• Not misrepresent regulated status

Aggravating factors:

• Loans totalling over £7m (including facilitation fees and interest) never repaid, causing substantial loss to the Axiom fund and its investors
• Misconduct continued over a period of time
• Conduct motivated in part by personal/financial gain and keeping the failing firm afloat
• Significant harm to public confidence and the reputation of the profession, attracting considerable publicity
• For First Respondent: multiple, serious findings including dishonesty

Mitigating factors:

• Both Respondents of previously good character with no prior disciplinary findings
• Second Respondent was not the instigator/driver of the misconduct and was misled by the First Respondent
• Second Respondent made relatively early admissions (SAR breaches and lack of integrity on conflict allegations) after obtaining independent advice
• Second Respondent's misconduct was a single episode in an otherwise unblemished 30+ year career, with limited role (2% equity partner) and supervised current employment
• First Respondent put forward no exceptional circumstances