Retired solicitor gives undertaking not to hold himself out as practising after complaints

SRA: proportionate outcome

A retired, non-practising solicitor who helped “friends and acquaintances” with legal matters but misled third parties into believing that he was still in practice has given an undertaking to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) that he will not repeat his misconduct.

Geoffrey Allen Parry, 67, was also rebuked and fined £500 for conduct that included the reserved legal activity of litigation. He last held a practising certificate in 2012/13.

According to a regulatory settlement agreement published yesterday – meaning the case will not go on to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal – his company, Geoff Parry Limited (GPL), was incorporated in April 2013, before he left practice, and his wife was a co-director.

At no time was it authorised by the SRA or any other legal regulator, although Companies House records state the nature of its business as being ‘Solicitors’. GPL was dissolved via compulsory strike off in August 2015.

The agreement recorded multiple times that Mr Parry acted for clients through GPL in both contentious and non-contentious matters without making clear his status as a non-practising solicitor.

This including filing a notice of change of legal representative at court and work on an estate which he had previously been handling as a solicitor and continued after he left practice.

He would often sign letters as a ‘Solicitor’ without any qualification.

The SRA said it received “reports/complaints” about Mr Parry’s involvement in these matters from various third parties, and not those he was assisting and representing.

Mr Parry, who was made bankrupt last year, admitted to undertaking reserved legal activities, failing “to adequately clarify his status as a non-practising solicitor to third parties on several occasions”, and holding himself out “explicitly or implicitly as a solicitor practising in legal practice when he had no practising certificate”.

In mitigation, Mr Parry said he was “a pensioner who augments his pension with a three-day-a-week appointment assisting in the sports department of a local school”.

He said GPL was formed when he had been working in practice as a consultant, as a vehicle intended to minimise tax.

“Although correspondence was sent out on GPL letterheads, it never ‘traded’, in that Mr Parry states that no bills or accounts were prepared or advertising undertaken and the company was wound up in 2015.

“Since retiring from his position as a consultant solicitor, he continued to be contacted by friends and acquaintances on legal issues. [In most of the work] he was assisting and undertaking correspondence for no charge and those he was assisting knew that he had officially retired as a solicitor.”

Mr Parry said he had not intended to mislead or deceive any third parties, but accepted “in hindsight that his correspondence was not sufficiently clear”.

He thought he could act in the litigation matter as a “litigation friend” on a short-term basis until the clients arranged other representation, while he said contract work for a corporate deal was in the capacity of a “business consultant” and he had no direct involvement in the transaction itself.

In deciding that the sanction was proportionate and appropriate, the SRA noted that the conduct persisted after Mr Parry should have realised that it was “improper”, and that “the conduct misled or had the potential to mislead clients, the court or other persons, whether or not that was appreciated by the regulated person”.

He undertook to “ensure that his status as a non-practising solicitor is made clear to all parties he deals with in all relevant circumstances, unless and until he obtains a practising certificate in the future (or successfully applies for removal from the roll of solicitors)”.

Leave a Comment

By clicking Submit you consent to Legal Futures storing your personal data and confirm you have read our Privacy Policy and section 5 of our Terms & Conditions which deals with user-generated content. All comments will be moderated before posting.

Required fields are marked *
Email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


Our latest special report, produced in association with Temple Legal Protection, looks at the role of after-the-event (ATE) insurance in commercial litigation post-LASPO. We are at a time when insurers, solicitors, clients and litigation funders work ever more closely to create funding packages that work for all of them, with conditional fee and even damages-based agreements now part of many law firms’ armoury.


16 October 2019

The new SRA accounts rules – a checklist for compliant software

There are a number of changes to the accounts rules from 25 November, which law firm managers and compliance officers will need to take into account in order for their firms not to be in breach.

Read More

Loading animation