Clinch, Andrew Paul—366890


To view the decision against this individual, click the decision below.

Prosecution—26 May 2016

Decision - prosecution

Outcome: Referral to Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal

Outcome date: 26 May 2016

Published date: 4 January 2017

Firm details

Firm or organisation at date of publication and at time of matters giving rise to outcome

Name: Clinch Solicitors

Address(es):Barnett House, 53 Fountain Street, Manchester, Lancashire M2 2AN

Firm ID: 598975

Outcome details

This outcome was reached by SRA decision.


This notification relates to a Decision to prosecute before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. This is an independent Tribunal which will reach its own decision after considering all the evidence, including any evidence put forward by the Solicitor. The Tribunal has certified that there is a case to answer in respect of allegations which are or include that:

1. He facilitated, permitted or acquiesced in personal injury claims being intimated and pursued in circumstances where the purported client(s); a) had not returned signed client retainers, signed conditional fee agreements (“CFA’s”), or any other written confirmation of instructions stating they wished the firm to act on their behalf; and/or b) had notified the firm they did not wish to pursue a personal injury claim.

2. He made representations, in the alternative permitted, facilitated or acquiesced in representations being made, to Third Party Insurers (“TPI”) which were inaccurate and misleading.

3. He paid prohibited referral fees in a manner which contravened Section 56 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (“LAPSO”).

4. He failed to produce to the SRA upon request, records and management information to demonstrate that payments made to an introducer(s) were not prohibited referral fees.

5. He failed to ensure that agreements with introducers were in writing.

6. He failed to inform clients of any financial or other interest which an introducer(s) had in referring them to his firm.

7. He failed to ensure adequately, or at all, that employees were properly supervised and trained.

8. He paid money into client bank account which was not client money.

The allegations are subject to a Hearing before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal and are as yet unproven.

Help and more information