Law centre solicitor struck off for charging clients


Immigration and asylum: solicitor practised without insurance

A solicitor who “took advantage” of his position at the law centre where he worked by privately charging immigration and asylum clients ineligible for legal aid has been struck off.

In an agreed outcome with the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), approved by a disciplinary tribunal, Andrew John Puddicombe was removed from the roll after it emerged that he had charged clients a total of £8,000 on a private paying basis while working at the Gloucester Law Centre.

The informal charges of between £50 and £200 per matter were made over a three-year period without the law centre’s knowledge and while using its headed notepaper and other resources.

Mr Puddicombe, who was born in 1956 and admitted as a solicitor in 1993, had no indemnity insurance to work privately.

The fee was agreed verbally only in advance and it was also alleged he had failed to keep proper accounts.

Most of the law centre’s clients were legally aided, with a small number of non-legally aided cases funded by local authority grants.

The misconduct was identified by his supervising solicitor, who reported him to the SRA, soon after which he was dismissed from the law centre for gross misconduct.

In mitigation, Mr Puddicombe said his clients were “completely aware” of the basis in which he was representing them and “the great majority” were “more than happy” with his work.

He had returned the sum of £8,400 to the law centre and said he had been careful to take on only work with which he was familiar.

The tribunal said the misconduct was “deliberate, planned and repeated” and was “extremely serious as he had acted dishonestly in order to gain additional income for himself whilst taking advantage of his position as an employee of [the law centre].”

By working without professional indemnity insurance he had “placed clients at risk” .

Mr Puddicombe agreed to pay costs of £5,000.




Blog


The AI governance gap in law firms and why it matters now

A third of law firms are already using AI tools with no formal policy in place to govern how AI gets used, what data goes into it, or who’s accountable when something goes wrong.


Information isn’t oversight – lessons from the PM Law review

The PM Law review’s real findings perhaps point to a failure mode applying to any organisation sitting on scattered risk information.


AI can do the work but it cannot inherit the lawyer’s duty

What happens when lawyers delegate cognitive work to AI but remain personally responsible for judgements they may no longer have independently reasoned through?


Loading animation