A solicitor appearing before the SDT accused of allowing his representative to make ‘misleading’ submissions during a previous disciplinary hearing has said he ‘did the best he could’ as he was not wearing a hearing aid at the time.

Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal sign

Source: Michael Cross

Richard Gregory Barca, admitted in 1986 and a manager at Wilson Barca LLP, is accused of not stopping his lawyer from making submissions that the Solicitors Regulation Authority alleges to be misleading. He is also alleged to have entered into eight individual financial arrangements or given loans to clients where there was an own-interest conflict or significant risk of one.

Those loans follow the deal at the centre of the 2019 hearing, which saw Barca fined £20,000.

Barca previously made admissions to parts of the allegations against him but denied dishonesty and recklessness. In relation to one allegation centred on own-interest conflict or a significant risk of conflict, Barca admitted a significant risk but not an actual conflict in the cases of three clients.

Taken to a transcript of the 2019 hearing, Michael Collis, for the SRA, said: ‘You are clarifying or amplifying points made on your behalf is that not so?’

Barca said: ‘I would not put it that way, no.’

Collis added that the transcript suggested that Barca was sitting ‘alongside’ his lawyer in the 2019 hearing. Barca replied: ‘Yes, but it does not mean I could hear everything he said. At the time I did not have a hearing aid.’

When asked why he did not tell the tribunal he was still having hearing difficulties, Barca said: ‘What else could be done? I never felt I should have got a hearing aid before. At the time of the hearing I did the best I could.’

Explaining why he had not mentioned the other loans or financial arrangements, Barca said they had ‘not been in [his] mind at the time’.

He added: ‘I thought what was being talked about [at the 2019 hearing] was a particular circumstance with a particular client in a particular situation where they were vulnerable and had not had legal advice. My takeaway from proceedings, from the process, and the hearing was the absence of independent legal advice was the key factor.’

For Barca, Geoffrey Williams KC, who also represented him in 2019, said: ‘The tribunal was not misled at all, not as a result of any breach of principles, nor dishonesty by Mr Barca, certainly not recklessness on his part. 

‘Given the nature of allegations that my client faces, the most serious a solicitor can face, it is only fair and right that the tribunal considers matters strictly and in their proper context. For instance, the reference “in the business of lending money” can only be seen as in the commercial business of money lending or more habitual money lending of cash.’

He added: ‘In a case like this it is essential the only lawful approach is to hold the SRA to the precise wording of its allegation. The goal posts cannot be moved and references to “other financial arrangements” are simply attempts to make the narrative fit the allegation. I do not know where “other financial arrangements” comes from, it does not come from the 2019 case.’

Collis, in reply, said: ‘In the course of Mr Williams' submissions, reference was made to the tribunal in 2019 not being misled but the allegation refers to misleading submissions. A statement or assertion can be misleading without having misled anyone.’

Referring to allegations about Barca’s financial arrangements with clients leading to the risk of conflicts of interest, Williams said ‘a common feature of this case as you will have apprehended’ was that a client ‘turned to Mr Barca for help’. Barca had been left ‘out of pocket’ by some of the financial arrangements he had entered into with clients, the tribunal heard. 

Williams added: ‘[Barca] got asked for help, he does so. He loses and gets himself in professional trouble. We submit he has done absolutely nothing wrong.’

The hearing continues. 

Topics