SRA details conflict and client-account claims as £52.7m property deals face scrutiny.
A senior solicitor stands accused of serious professional rule breaches linked to multimillion-pound property projects, as the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) examined detailed allegations over the course of hearings on 11–13 January 2023 and 3 March 2023. The Solicitors Regulation Authority Ltd (SRA) brought the case against Richard Longton, formerly of Metis LLP and Metis Law Ltd, where he headed commercial property. Longton attended with counsel; the SRA was represented by counsel instructed by Capsticks.
According to the SRA, between 26 July 2017 and 24 June 2019 Longton acted for buyers and sellers on a development scheme, creating actual or significant risks of conflict. The regulator alleged this failed Outcome 3.5 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011 and breached Principles 2, 6 and 8. It further alleged that, between July 2016 and 24 June 2019, he provided improper banking facilities through the firm’s client account by allowing payments in, transfers and withdrawals not tied to an underlying transaction or regulated service, contrary to Rule 14.5 of the Solicitors Accounts Rules 2011 and Principles 6 and 8.
The tribunal reviewed an agreed electronic bundle, then grappled with anonymisation issues. Citing the Court’s approach in Lu v SRA, the panel refused broad anonymity sought for several non-clients, noting ample information already in the public domain about developer Gavin Woodhouse and certain related companies. Clients F and G remained anonymised. The panel also handled late disclosure: a news report about a separate £131m civil claim referencing Metis Law surfaced on the eve of the hearing. Given potential relevance to contested factual issues, the tribunal allowed time for enquiries and adjourned briefly so parties could obtain particulars of claim from that High Court action.
Embed from Getty ImagesBackground materials set out the scale of the projects. From early 2015, Metis acted as a buyer-panel firm on MBI Consulting developments; investor purchases reached 149 rooms worth £10,613,000 across thirteen schemes. Contracts typically allowed seller solicitors to release deposits to the developer as agent, heightening risk if schemes failed. In July 2017, after the seller’s previous representative ceased acting, Metis took over seller work on two developments—Hawthorn Care Village and Clifton Moor—while already acting for dozens of buyers on the same schemes.
The case papers then traced the later Northern Powerhouse Developments (NPD) phase. From around July 2016, Metis acted for Woodhouse-controlled companies as sellers, handling 540 unit sales—rooms, lodges and plots—totalling £52,736,850 across fifteen investment schemes. Some agreements permitted deposit funds to be used before completion, with group guarantees cited as protection. Forensic work sampled ledgers and followed money flows, noting that while some funds paid site-specific costs, large sums moved intra-group through client accounts. Administrators of several NPD companies later described the difficulty of reconstructing who owed what, despite cooperation from the firm.
Witnesses amplified the documentary trail. The SRA’s Forensic Investigation Officer, Joanna Wright, described site visits in 2019 and her report of 11 August 2020. She accepted there was no loss to Clients F and G, and discussed a £1,320 ledger item linked to Hawthorn. Former Metis director John Barker gave evidence about client-opening procedures, the firm’s roles (including COLP/COFA responsibilities at different times), and the environment in which numerous ledgers and intra-group transfers operated under Woodhouse’s direction. Barker accepted, with hindsight, that he would not involve himself in such work again, but resisted suggestions of firm-wide knowledge of undisclosed seller files; he was later recalled to address ledger entries recording conflict and credit checks.
Longton gave evidence, admitting he acted for both sides but denying any lack of integrity or secrecy. He said the schemes appeared legitimate, pointed to prominent backers and publicity at the time, and maintained that buyers had already received advice before his later involvement. On the banking-facilities allegation, he said transfers were made with the authority of the sole director and beneficial owner of each special-purpose vehicle, and in contemplation of ongoing transactions. He accepted that, with hindsight, he would not repeat dual-side acting.
Across several days, the tribunal balanced Article 6 and 8 rights with the public-interest lens required in disciplinary proceedings. It heard submissions on conflict risk crystallising where buyers sought to terminate, reviewed internal emails about non-disclosure agreements and repayments, and considered how file-opening safeguards interfaced with ledger realities. The panel reserved its final view to the written judgment, after considering all evidence and submissions made.