Richard Jefferies

Introduction

Richard Jefferies is a consultant solicitor, admitted to the roll in 1989, who was struck off by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) after admitting that he received more than £7,000 directly from a client, carried out criminal-defence work outside the authorised regulatory framework, and provided misleading information about his client’s representation to the courts and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). Jefferies admitted all the allegations against him, and admitted that his conduct in relation to the representation form was dishonest. The Law Gazette reported the strike-off on 24 July 2026.

Background Information

Jefferies qualified as a solicitor in 1989, giving him more than three decades in the profession by the time of the tribunal proceedings. Between September 2021 and December 2022 — the period during which the misconduct occurred — he worked as a consultant for seven different criminal law firms.

Despite those multiple firm affiliations, the client work was not performed under the supervision of any of them: a statement of agreed facts said Jefferies did not carry out the legal work for the client under any of their ‘supervisory umbrellas’. He had not carried out the work as a registered sole practitioner either, which meant the legal services he provided were unauthorised.

The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation

Adjudicated. Jefferies admitted all the allegations against him at the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, including that his conduct in submitting the representation form was dishonest, and the case was resolved through a judgment on an agreed outcome. These are regulatory findings made by a professional disciplinary tribunal — not criminal convictions.

The admitted allegations fell into three areas.

First, payments from his client. Jefferies was alleged to have requested and received money from his client directly into his personal bank account and/or in cash. The payments totalled more than £7,000 and varied in size from £500 to £2,250. He provided the client with no invoices or receipts for any of the payments, and gave the client neither a retainer nor any form of client care letter.

Second, unauthorised legal work. Jefferies undertook reserved legal work and the representation of a client as a solicitor in criminal defence proceedings other than through an SRA-authorised firm. Although he consulted for seven different criminal firms between September 2021 and December 2022, the agreed facts stated that the work was done under none of their ‘supervisory umbrellas’, and because he was not a registered sole practitioner either, the services he provided were unauthorised.

Third, misleading information to the courts and the CPS. Jefferies submitted a form stating that his client was being represented by a firm, and the tribunal treated this as the provision of misleading information to the courts and the Crown Prosecution Service. He admitted that his conduct in relation to the form was dishonest.

Public Reaction and Consequences

In a judgment on the agreed outcome, the SDT found that Jefferies’ admissions were properly made and that his misconduct was ‘serious’. The tribunal said his actions ‘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’.

The tribunal also emphasised that the misconduct was not a one-off: ‘The misconduct was not isolated. It occurred over a period of approximately a year and included a misleading representation to the court and the Crown Prosecution Service as to Client A’s legal representation. It was conduct which the respondent knew, or ought reasonably to have known, was in material breach of his professional obligations to protect the public and the reputation of the legal profession.’

Agreeing with the proposed strike-off, the SDT said removal from the roll was the ‘appropriate and proportionate sanction’. Jefferies was also ordered to pay £22,000 in costs.

Current Status

Jefferies has been struck off the roll of solicitors and can no longer practise as a solicitor. The £22,000 costs order against him stands. His admissions covered every allegation, including dishonesty in relation to the representation form, and the outcome was delivered as an agreed SDT judgment rather than a contested hearing.

Impact on Their Career/Life

The strike-off removed Jefferies from the roll more than three decades after his admission in 1989, ending his ability to practise as a solicitor. The tribunal’s findings — dishonesty, lack of integrity, the receipt of client money directly into his personal account and/or in cash, and the provision of reserved legal services outside the protections of an authorised practice — were made on the public record, and the SDT concluded that his conduct had breached his professional obligations to protect the public and the reputation of the legal profession. Alongside the loss of his professional status, he was ordered to pay £22,000 in costs.

Sources

• Law Gazette, “Consultant solicitor struck off over ‘misleading representation’ to court and CPS,” Jul 24, 2026 — source