Tribunal finds solicitor acted without integrity in transactions linked to LCF scheme
A senior solicitor has been struck off after the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found he facilitated backdated agreements and acted despite what it described as an “obvious” conflict of interest connected to the collapse of London Capital & Finance (LCF).
Robert Mannering Sedgwick, who qualified in 1973, faced disciplinary proceedings brought by the Solicitors Regulation Authority concerning conduct while working at Buss Murton Law LLP and later as an independent consultant. The tribunal found all allegations against Sedgwick proved following a hearing on 22 April 2026. He did not attend the proceedings and was unrepresented.
The case centred on a series of backdated documents connected to transactions involving companies linked to LCF and associated borrowers. The tribunal found Sedgwick facilitated the preparation, execution and circulation of several backdated agreements between 2016 and 2019, including facility agreements, loan assignments and call option agreements.
The tribunal concluded that the documents were backdated to create misleading impressions regarding when lending arrangements had been put in place and to conceal the fact that funds had already been advanced before agreements were executed.
The judgment referred extensively to findings made by Mr Justice Miles in earlier civil proceedings arising from the collapse of LCF, which entered administration in January 2019 after raising more than £237 million from around 11,600 bondholders.
The tribunal also found Sedgwick acted while subject to a significant own-interest conflict through his control of Global Security Trustees Limited (GST), which had been established to protect bondholders’ interests as security trustee for LCF.
At the same time, Sedgwick acted for borrower companies linked to individuals associated with LCF lending arrangements. The tribunal ruled that the dual roles created an irreconcilable conflict because GST’s role required independent protection of bondholders while Sedgwick’s legal work involved advancing borrowers’ interests.
The panel described the conflict risk as “clear and obvious” and said it was “staggering” that a solicitor with Sedgwick’s level of experience failed to recognise it from the outset. The tribunal found Sedgwick’s conduct breached Principles 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011 and Outcome 3.4 of the Code of Conduct 2011.
In its sanction decision, the tribunal said Sedgwick had demonstrated a “continued pattern of unethical behaviour” and had failed to learn from previous disciplinary action taken against him in 2017. He was struck off the Roll of Solicitors, although no costs order was made because of his bankruptcy.