Neil Adams
Employee
567468

Decision - Employee-related decision

Outcome: Control of non-qualified staff (Section 43 / Section 99 order)

Outcome date: 8 April 2024

Published date: 10 May 2024

Firm details

Firm or organisation at time of matters giving rise to outcome

Name: Richard Griffiths & Co

Address(es): 86 Crane Street SALISBURY SP1 2QD

Firm ID: 283127

Outcome details

This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

Decision details

Who does this decision relate to?

Neil David Adams whose last known address was in Salisbury, Wiltshire.

A person who is or was involved in a legal practice but is not a solicitor.

Summary of decision

The SRA has put restrictions on where and how Mr Adams can work in an SRA regulated firm. It was found that:

Mr Adams, who is not a solicitor, was involved in a legal practice and has occasioned or been a party to an act or default which involved such conduct on his part that it is undesirable for him to be involved in a legal practice in any of the ways described in the order below.

The facts of the case

Between December 2019 and March 2022, Mr Adams was employed by Richard Griffiths & Co (the firm) as a lawyer in the civil litigation department. He was an employment specialist and a fellow of CILEx. He was the head of the dispute resolution department.

It was found that Mr Adams:

• failed to account to the firm for benefits received in lieu of fees for legal services provided to a client between 26 January 2021 and 17 September 2021 and
• failed to provide information to the same client on costs, the firm’s regulatory status and the firm’s procedures (including the complaints procedure) at the time of engagement.

Decision on outcome

An order pursuant to section 43(2) of the Solicitors Act 1974 was imposed as Mr Adams’ conduct meant that it was undesirable for him to be involved in a legal practice without the SRA’s prior approval. The order pursuant to section 43 was made with effect from 28 days’ after the date of the letter or email notifying Mr Adams of this decision:

Mr Adams’ conduct was serious because he provided legal services to a client in the name of his firm and while employed in exchange for work done by the client to his house and he did not account to his employer for that benefit. In so doing, he also failed to provide regulatory information to the client to which the client was entitled to and which he and his firm was obliged to provide. This conduct favoured his own interests over those of his employer and its client, who were entitled to have those interests preferred over his own.

Mr Adams was also ordered to pay a proportion of the SRA’s costs of £600.

What our Section 43 order means

1. no solicitor shall employ or remunerate him in connection with his/her practice as a solicitor;
2. no employee of a solicitor shall employ or remunerate him in connection with the solicitor's practice;
3. no recognised body shall employ or remunerate him;
4. no manager or employee of a recognised body shall employ or remunerate him in connection with the business of that body;
5. no recognised body or manager or employee of such a body shall permit him to be a manager of the body; and
6. no recognised body or manager or employee of such a body shall permit him to have an interest in the body

except in accordance with the SRA’s prior written permission.