Beresfords partners struck off
Beresfords Solicitors partners Jim Beresford and Douglas Smith have been struck off after all but three of the 11 allegations of professional misconduct against them have been upheld by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal.
The hearing against Beresford and Smith, who have become multi-millionaires through work on sick miners compensation claims, arose from their alleged conduct in relation to their handling of the claims.
The firm paid a £300 referral fee to claims farmer Vendiside - a firm owned by the Union of Democratic Mineworkers (UDM) - for cases passed on under the guise that this fee would be used as a “marketing/administration/investigative fee”.
The Tribunal today upheld the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s (SRA) claims that was in reality a referral fee and that by attempting to dress it up as a marketing fee, Beresford and Smith had breached the referral fee code (1990).
Furthermore, before UDM clients received compensation, Beresford made a deduction of up to £300 plus VAT, which was given to Vendside “to cover the cost of pursuing the claim”.
The tribunal said: “These allegations that have been proved are serious
allegations. The rules and regulations are needed for the proper conduct of
the solicitors profession. Cases like this have a serious impact on the
reputation of the profession and in the eyes of the public.”
Tribunal chair David Leverson warned that any solicitors that breached the code must expect “severe punishment” and “the tribunal has come to the conclusion that both respondents must be struck off the role as of today”.
Beresfords managing partner Martin Ryan said: “As the SDP has said this is not about negligence or any criminal prosecution…we have managed to get £221m compensation to miners…It must be noted that, as was mentioned in the tribunal, client money was not misappropriated.”
Beresfords will be appealing the findings in the High Court.
As The Lawyer revealed last year, Jim Beresford became the UK’s richest lawyer in the 2005-06 financial year, having taken home a total of £16.8m in the 12-month period.
His firm was one of 30 law firms to take home more than £800m, paid by the Department of Trade & Industry (DTI), for handling claims for coalminers who have suffered from respiratory diseases and vibration white finger (9 April 2007).
Fountain Court silk Tim Dutton QC, who represented the SRA in its case against the firm, said that 84 per cent of its work came from the Government’s miners compensation schemes, which were set up to compensate those who had contracted conditions such as vibration white finger syndrome.
“Every allegation is serious, with some serious enough to see it as conduct unbefitting [of a solicitor],” Dutton told the tribunal.
Upholding the SRA allegations, David Leverson earlier today ruled: “Our view is that the miners were not vulnerable because of their core health but because of their inability to understand the legal documentation and advice. If there was ever a group of people that needed care and skill of solicitors it would be miners.”
He continued: “Careless use of documentation shows their attitude towards their clients. Beresford describes himself as an entrepreneur but his commercial goals were put before the clients best interests.”
In total, Beresfords registered 97,500 claims under what has become the world’s largest personal injury compensation scheme.
To subscribe to our free Lawyer News Daily news and comment email, click here. Or get the latest news, features and comment as it’s published with our free RSS feed.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page
Readers' comments (19)
Anonymous | 11-Dec-2008 4:41 pm
About time too
Parasites. Still, puts that Davenport Lyons story in perspective...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 11-Dec-2008 4:43 pm
Right decision
This is the right ruling and should be a warning to other personal injury lawyers and claims farmers who try to profit out of other people's misery.
If it were not for the reporting on Beresfords, however, how long would the SRA have let this go on??
Perhaps it is time to look at referral fees again and ask exactly what they do to taint our profession.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 11-Dec-2008 5:22 pm
Not surprised.
This does not surprise me in the least it only confirms what everyone knows about the legal "profession.". There is no way I would use a solicitor, There is no dispute which cannot be solved without the need for the legal industry.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Clint | 11-Dec-2008 5:26 pm
hear hear
I solve all of my disputes with my trusty Colt .45
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Ian Smart, vice president of the Law Society of Scotland, | 11-Dec-2008 5:43 pm
Beresfords note
These cases relate to England and Wales only and not to Scotland where there has been a much better regulatory regime. Any miners' compensation cases in Scotland have been handled in a reputable and proper way.
There have been no complaints in Scotland about handling of miners' compensation claims and no evidence of cause for concern.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
City Gent | 11-Dec-2008 6:03 pm
Referral fees
The decision of the Law Society to allow referral fees to be paid was a disgrace, and should be reversed as soon as possible. Competent firms don't need to pay for work, and they encourage ambulance chasers like this shower.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
John | 11-Dec-2008 6:59 pm
Not surprised
So when do all of us that had claims with this firm and a so called union that was working for our ( best interests) get the money back that effectivley was stolen from us??????/
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 11-Dec-2008 10:34 pm
excellent news
The scumbag should have to pay back the money. He has damaged our profession fundamentally.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 12-Dec-2008 9:11 am
Really?
"There is no dispute which cannot be solved without the need for the legal industry." Mmmmm. The fact that several billion is spent each year on lawyers resolving disputes in this country alone must be an aberration then.
The point has been seriously missed here. The profession (and yes, it remains a profession) should be commended for disciplining the very small minority that do not comply with the strict rules and regulations that exist.
While the SRA does what it should do, the financial services industry wreaks havoc on millions of people without any prospect of any form of sanction against the hordes of self interested, disingenuous bankers responsible for the largest Ponzi scheme known to man kind.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 12-Dec-2008 9:25 am
Further info please
Am I the only one who cannot help but feel that Beresfords is a victim of its own success and is being made an example of simply for taking advantage of the obvious problems with compensation schemes such as this. More importantly, have the 2 partners concerned been orderd to repay the £30m or so deducated from thier clients damages?
If not, what is the point of striking them off? I'm sure that this public humilation will seem unbearalbe from their villas in the med.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment