Cannabis: Client was jailed for offences
A consultant solicitor who carried out unauthorised work for a man facing serious drug offences, and then asked to be paid in cash, has been struck off.
Criminal defence solicitor Richard Jeffries also gave misleading information to the court and the Crown Prosecution Service.
Mr Jeffries, 61, admitted three allegations which all related to a man – ‘Client A’ – he first met at Guildford Police Station in 2020 when he was a consultant at London firm Sperrin Law, one of seven to which he was a consultant at the time.
A statement of agreed facts and outcome approved by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) said that a year later, in June 2021, Client A was charged with growing and possessing cannabis.
Soon after, Mr Jeffries, who qualified in 1989, was asked to meet Client A and he advised him ahead of the plea and trial preparation hearing.
Over the next 15 months, he carried out “reserved legal work and representation of a client as a solicitor, in criminal defence proceedings”, but not as part of any regulated law firm. This meant he was unauthorised to do the work.
Over that period, he requested and received £7,750 in payments from Client A, either into his personal bank account or sometimes in cash. There were no invoices, receipts, retainer or client-care letter.
In September 2022, the client was convicted and later sentenced to prison. In December 2022, Mr Jeffries submitted an ‘NG sentence form’ in which he stated that Client A was represented by London firm Carters Solicitors, when that was not true.
The tribunal was told it was unclear what legal work Mr Jeffries actually carried out.
“This appears to have entailed meeting and corresponding with Client A, advising him on his case and purporting to be in contact with the police, the CPS and expert barristers.
“Given that there are no records of any client care letters or invoices being produced by the respondent during the time that he was representing Client A, it is not possible to set out the activity in any greater detail.”
Mr Jeffries, who did not attend the hearing, offered no mitigation.
The SDT said his misconduct “involved dishonesty, lack of integrity, the receipt of client money directly into the respondent’s personal bank account and/or in cash, and the provision of reserved legal services outside the protections afforded by an authorised practice”.
He knew, or should have done, that he was in breach of his professional obligations.
“The tribunal therefore accepted the parties’ assessment that strike off was the appropriate and proportionate sanction. It was satisfied that no lesser sanction would adequately protect the public, maintain public confidence in the profession and in the provision of legal services, or uphold proper professional standards.”
Mr Jeffries was struck off and ordered to pay costs of £22,000.
Leave a Comment