Tribunal finds SRA failed to prove allegations against long-serving Derby solicitor
A Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal has dismissed all allegations brought by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) against Richard Alexander Dobson, concluding that the regulator failed to prove its case on the balance of probabilities.
Mr Dobson was admitted to the roll in December 1977 and had practised for decades as a solicitor. The allegations concerned his conduct between February 2020 and September 2021 while he worked as a solicitor and partner at a law firm operating from offices in Derby and Nottingham. At the relevant time, he held a practising certificate free from conditions.
The proceedings arose from allegations made by the SRA regarding Mr Dobson’s conduct during that period. The regulator alleged breaches of professional obligations and advanced claims that required proof of both seriousness and culpability in order to establish misconduct.
The case progressed through the disciplinary process over several years. The SRA’s Rule 12 Statement was dated 11 June 2025, while Part One Standard Directions were issued on 16 June 2025 and Part Two Standard Directions followed on 7 October 2025. Mr Dobson filed and served his formal Answer on 12 September 2025, denying all allegations made against him.
During the proceedings, both parties agreed that the Principles and provisions of the SRA Code relied upon in the case were not matters of strict liability. Instead, the Tribunal was required to determine whether the conduct alleged reached the necessary threshold of seriousness and culpability for regulatory breaches to be established.
After considering the evidence, submissions and relevant legal principles, the Tribunal concluded that the SRA had not met the required standard of proof. The allegations arose from Mr Dobson’s handling of litigation for a client between 2020 and 2021. The SRA alleged that he had failed to act in the client’s best interests and had produced misleading file notes and correspondence regarding the reasons a judgment had been entered against the client. The Tribunal rejected both allegations in their entirety. It accepted Mr Dobson’s evidence that he genuinely believed a court judgment had been entered because of a procedural error and found no evidence that he had attempted to mislead the court, his client or his firm.
In its judgment, the Tribunal found that the allegations against Mr Dobson had not been proved on the balance of probabilities. As a result, all allegations were dismissed.
The ruling represents a complete success for Mr Dobson in the disciplinary proceedings, with the Tribunal rejecting the claims advanced by the regulator.
The judgment also highlights the importance of the evidential burden in professional disciplinary cases. The Tribunal emphasised that allegations involving breaches of the SRA Principles and Code require proof of conduct that is sufficiently serious and culpable to justify regulatory findings.
Having determined that the SRA had failed to establish the allegations against Mr Dobson, the Tribunal dismissed the case in its entirety.