Sdt strikes off Thompson, fines second solicitor £10k over shocking client money breaches
Solicitor Richard Markham Thompson has been struck off the Roll after the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) found he had misused more than £53,000 of client money to cover his personal tax bill. A fellow partner at his firm was also fined £10,000 for failing to prevent the improper transfers.
The tribunal heard that Thompson, admitted in 1982, transferred funds from client accounts to meet liabilities to HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) and to prop up his struggling practice. Investigators found multiple breaches of the Solicitors Accounts Rules, including disbursement funds being held back, duplicate transfers, and withdrawals of client money to pay rent, insurance, and credit card bills.
Between August and December 2014, Thompson authorised a string of transfers from client to office accounts. These included £38,244 earmarked for professional disbursements such as counsel’s and mediator’s fees, which he kept in the firm’s office account for up to three months before eventually paying them out.
Embed from Getty ImagesThe most serious misconduct came in November 2014. Facing pressure from HMRC over a tax debt of more than £71,000, Thompson withdrew £53,000 from client funds into the firm’s tax reserve account and used it the same day to part-pay the liability. A further £20,000, originally intended for counsel’s fees in a litigation matter, was also diverted to meet the bill.
The tribunal found that the withdrawals were deliberate, calculated and dishonest. Thompson admitted during interviews that he had been “between a rock and a hard place” as HMRC threatened enforcement action. He said he had expected a loan to come through to cover the shortfall, but the funding did not arrive in time. The SDT concluded that he knew the transfers were improper and that any reasonable solicitor would have recognised them as dishonest.
In another instance, a duplicated transfer of £27,322.81 was placed into a suspense ledger and ended up being used, in part, to pay a partner’s tax liability. Thompson claimed the duplication was an error, but the tribunal rejected this explanation and held that the transfer was another deliberate misuse of client funds.
The SDT ruled that Thompson’s conduct lacked integrity, breached fundamental principles of public trust, and caused serious harm to the profession’s reputation. It emphasised that solicitors are guardians of client money and can never use it to cover personal or business debts. Repaying the sums later did not remove the dishonesty or its impact.
The second partner at the firm, who was admitted in 2000 and has not been named publicly, admitted strict liability for allowing the improper transfers but denied dishonesty. He told the tribunal he had trusted Thompson to manage the finances and had been unaware client money was being used for tax payments. When he realised the scale of the problem, he injected £57,000 of his own funds and later cashed in his pension to cover deficits.
The tribunal accepted that the second solicitor bore financial and practical responsibility for clearing the firm’s liabilities but had shown insight and cooperation. While his failings were serious, they stemmed from lack of oversight rather than dishonesty. He was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay £5,764 in costs.
Thompson, however, was struck off the Roll entirely. The SDT ordered him to pay £17,293 in costs, reflecting his greater culpability. The ruling stressed that dishonesty involving client money is among the most serious breaches a solicitor can commit, quoting earlier case law which held that public confidence depends on solicitors being trusted “to the ends of the earth.”
The decision serves as a stark reminder of the profession’s zero tolerance towards misappropriation of client funds, regardless of financial pressures. Thompson’s career ended with the ultimate sanction, while his partner was left with heavy personal losses and professional censure.