Burley, Richard James - 293295

 This notification relates to a Decision to prosecute before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. This is an independent Tribunal which will reach its own decision after considering all the evidence, including any evidence put forward by the Solicitor. The Tribunal has certified that there is a case to answer in respect of allegations which are or include that :-

 1. He has done things in the course of acting as a Solicitor which have compromised or impaired or were likely to compromise or impair :-

1.1.1 His independence or integrity: and/or

1.1.2 His duty to act in the best interests of clients and/or

1.1.3 His duty to provide a good standard of service to clients

1.1.4 His duty not to behave in a way that was likely to diminish the trust the public places in him and the legal profession

 1.2. He has acted and/or continued to act in circumstances where there was a conflict and/or where there was a significant risk of a conflict between the interests of his clients and his own interests.

1.3. He has accepted introductions and referrals of business from other persons

1.4. He has failed to provide clients with the best information possible about costs.

1.5 He has failed to make arrangements for the effective management of the Firm.

1.6 He has failed to comply within the stipulated timescale with Adjudicator's Directions made in respect of Inadequate Professional Services.

1.7 He submitted a false and/or misleading application to the SRA for approval to practice as a Recognised Sole Practitioner.

 1.8 He submitted a false and/or misleading application to the SRA for a Practising Certificate

1.9 He submitted a false and/or misleading proposal form for Professional Indemnity Insurance

1.10 He attempted to transfer files to a Firm whose practise was not recognised by the SRA

The allegations are subject to a Hearing before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal and are as yet unproven.

1. The Committee was satisfied that grounds for intervention existed under Paragraph 1(1)(a) of Part I of Schedule 1 of the Solicitors’ Act 1974 (as amended). The Committee was satisfied that there was reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of Mr Richard James Burley in relation to his practice as a solicitor.

2. The Committee was satisfied that grounds for intervention exist under Paragraph 1(1)(c) of Part I of Schedule 1 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended) namely that Mr Burley has failed to comply with the Solicitors Code of Conduct 2007.

3. The Committee was satisfied that grounds for intervention existed under Paragraph1(1)(m) of Part I of Schedule 1 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended) namely, that the Committee was satisfied that it was necessary to exercise the powers conferred by Part II of this Schedule (or any of them) in relation to Mr Richard James Burley to protect the interests of clients (or former or potential clients) of Mr Burley or his firm, or the interests of the beneficiaries of any trust which Mr Burley is or was a trustee.