Robert Sedgwick

Introduction

Robert Sedgwick is an England and Wales solicitor, admitted in 1973, who was struck off the roll by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) after it found that he repeatedly backdated documents relevant to London Capital and Finance (LCF), the investment scheme that collapsed in 2019 owing more than £379m. The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), prosecuting, said Sedgwick changed dates on loan agreements to give a misleading impression to auditors and regulators about when they were executed. He admitted backdating certain agreements between parties but denied one allegation, which the tribunal rejected. Separately, in civil proceedings brought by the LCF administrators, Mr Justice Miles found that Sedgwick and others knowingly took part in fraudulent conduct and dishonestly assisted breaches of duty by company owners.

Background Information

Sedgwick spent his entire legal career with Buss Murton Law, a firm based in Kent, where he was a consultant until 2017; since then he has not held a practising certificate. The misconduct that reached the SDT arose out of the collapse of London Capital and Finance. Between 2013 and 2018, LCF raised more than £237m from retail investors by selling ‘mini bonds’ to about 11,600 bondholders. It presented itself to investors as a commercial lender to the UK’s small and medium-sized sector, but in fact advanced the money it raised to a small number of connected companies associated with four individuals, and much of the monies lent proved irrecoverable. Sedgwick acted for many of the companies which borrowed money from LCF and was company secretary for some of them.

The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation

Adjudicated. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found Sedgwick knew documents were backdated and struck him off; he admitted backdating certain agreements but denied one allegation, which the tribunal rejected. Separately, in civil proceedings brought by the London Capital and Finance administrators, Mr Justice Miles found he knowingly took part in fraudulent conduct and dishonestly assisted breaches of duty — civil findings, not criminal convictions. The SDT findings are regulatory adjudications.

The SRA told the tribunal that Sedgwick changed dates on loan agreements to give a misleading impression to auditors and regulators about when they were executed. The tribunal also heard that for more than two years, Sedgwick owned and controlled a company called GST, whose role was to act as security trustee protecting the interests of bondholders. Mr Justice Miles, in his ruling in the administrators’ civil proceedings, had described the solicitor’s backdating of documents as ’endemic’, and said a key function of any security trustee would be to enforce security against the borrowers — noting there was an obvious conflict and that GST could not independently represent the investors against the borrowers.

The SDT found that the risk of a conflict was ‘so obvious that it was staggering that Mr Sedgwick (who was an extremely experienced solicitor) did not see the significant risk of an own interest conflict from the outset’. It added: ‘Mr Sedgwick’s actions resulted from his complete failure to have regard to his regulatory obligations and his obligations as the security trustee. He had acted in breach of the trust placed in him by the bondholders whom he had a fiduciary duty to protect. He was wholly and solely culpable for his conduct.’

Public Reaction and Consequences

Sedgwick, who was not present at his tribunal hearing last month, had denied one allegation, saying he had little involvement with the preparation of certain documents and had no idea they would be backdated. The tribunal did not accept his explanation and found that he knew documents were backdated. He had admitted to the tribunal that he backdated certain agreements between parties, and on that basis it struck him off the roll.

The SRA applied for £68,500 in costs, but the tribunal made no order for costs because Sedgwick was already bankrupt. The judgment of Mr Justice Miles in the administrators’ civil proceedings had already set the frame for the tribunal’s hearing: the judge said the solicitor received more than £500,000 from his involvement in the scheme, and that Sedgwick and others knowingly took part in fraudulent conduct and dishonestly assisted breaches of duty by company owners.

Current Status

Sedgwick is struck off the roll, which removes his ability to practise as a solicitor in England and Wales. He has not held a practising certificate since 2017, when his role as a consultant at Buss Murton Law ended. The tribunal made no order for costs on the SRA’s application for £68,500 because he was bankrupt, and the report does not indicate any appeal against the strike-off.

Impact on Their Career/Life

The strike-off closes out a legal career that began with Sedgwick’s admission in 1973. His consultancy at Buss Murton Law had ended in 2017 and he had not held a practising certificate since, but the tribunal’s finding that he knew documents were backdated removes his standing in the profession altogether. Financially, Mr Justice Miles found that he received more than £500,000 from his involvement in the scheme, and the bankruptcy that meant the SRA’s £68,500 costs application failed leaves the regulator’s pursuit of him unresolved in practical terms. The tribunal’s own words were the harshest measure of the fall: he acted in breach of the trust placed in him by the bondholders to whom he owed a fiduciary duty, and ‘his complete failure to have regard to his regulatory obligations’ made him ‘wholly and solely culpable’ for his conduct.

Sources

• Law Gazette, “Solicitor banned after tribunal hears backdating was ’endemic’ in collapsed Ponzi-style investment scheme,” May 20, 2026 — source