2 reviews and information for Parry and Welch Solicitors LLP, Widnes

Home > UK Solicitor > Widnes > Parry and Welch Solicitors LLP

How to find us

Independence House, 129 Albert Road, Widnes, Cheshire, WA8 6LB


Facilities Office accepts Legal Aid

Languages spoken English 
Size of firm 2 solicitors


Are you this solicitor?    
Contact us to take control of your listing or to request any edits to your information

All content on solicitor.info is viewed and used at your own risk and we do not warrant the accuracy or reliability of any of the information.


Reviews

Add review

Summary

5 stars   0
4 stars   0
3 stars   0
2 stars   0
1 stars   0

Legal services at this branch

  • Advocacy
  • Banking
  • Crime - fraud
  • Crime - general
  • Environment
  • Family - general
  • Licensing gaming and betting
  • Litigation - general
  • Neighbour disputes


Add review

Filter Reviews

 


Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

23/06/17

Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/491181.article?Decision=2017-06-23

Outcome: Regulatory settlement agreement
Outcome details

This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

Reasons/basis

Agreed outcome

1.1. Richard Lacey, a solicitor and former member of Parry Welch Lacey LLP, agrees to the following outcome to the investigation of his conduct by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA):



(a) he is rebuked.

(b) to the publication of this agreement.

(c) he will pay the costs of the investigation of ?600.



Summary of Facts

2.1. On 21 December 2015 Mr Lacey was socialising with a group of work colleagues in Liverpool city centre. During the evening he punched a female colleague in the face. He subsequently attended a police station for a voluntary interview and on 10 May 2016 he accepted a conditional caution for assault by beating.

2.2. The conditions of the caution were:



(a) to write a letter of apology to his victim; and

(b) pay her compensation of ?150.



2.3. Mr Lacey complied with the conditions of the caution on 10 and 17 May 2016.

Admissions

3.1. Mr Lacey admits and the SRA accepts that by committing the offence of assault by beating and accepting a conditional caution for that offence he has:



(a) Failed to uphold the rule of law in breach of Principle 1 of the SRA Principles 2011; and

(b) Failed to behave in a way that maintains the trust the public places in him and the provision of legal services in breach of Principle 6 of the SRA Principles 2011.



Why the agreed outcome is appropriate

4.1. The SRA considers that the agreed outcome is appropriate as the conditions in rule 3.1 of the SRA Disciplinary Rules 2011 are met, in that:



(a) the conduct was deliberate or reckless;

(b) the agreed outcome is a proportionate outcome in the public interest;

(c) the conduct was neither trivial nor justifiably inadvertent.



4.2. Mr Lacey has explained that he was dealing with some difficult personal circumstances at the time, which he believes had an impact on his conduct.

4.3. The SRA considers it appropriate that this agreement is published in the interests of transparency in the regulatory and disciplinary process.

Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this Agreement

5.1. Mr Lacey agrees that he will not act in any way which is inconsistent with this agreement such as, for example, by denying the admissions made in this agreement.

5.2. If Mr Lacey acts in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement the conduct which is subject to this agreement may be subject to further consideration by the SRA. That may result in a disciplinary sanction or a referral to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal on the original facts and allegations. Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement may also constitute a separate breach of Principles 2, 6 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2011.

Costs

6.1. Mr Lacey agrees to pay the costs of the SRA's investigation in the sum of ?600. Such costs are due within 28 days of a statement of costs due being issued by the SRA.

Was this review helpful?  
Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

Respond   Report abuse

Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

23/06/17

Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/491181.article?Decision=2017-06-23

Outcome: Regulatory settlement agreement
This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

Reasons/basis
Agreed outcome
1.1. Richard Lacey, a solicitor and former member of Parry Welch Lacey LLP, agrees to the following outcome to the investigation of his conduct by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA):

(a) he is rebuked.
(b) to the publication of this agreement.
(c) he will pay the costs of the investigation of ?600.
Summary of Facts
2.1. On 21 December 2015 Mr Lacey was socialising with a group of work colleagues in Liverpool city centre. During the evening he punched a female colleague in the face. He subsequently attended a police station for a voluntary interview and on 10 May 2016 he accepted a conditional caution for assault by beating.

2.2. The conditions of the caution were:

(a) to write a letter of apology to his victim; and
(b) pay her compensation of ?150.
2.3. Mr Lacey complied with the conditions of the caution on 10 and 17 May 2016.

Admissions
3.1. Mr Lacey admits and the SRA accepts that by committing the offence of assault by beating and accepting a conditional caution for that offence he has:

(a) Failed to uphold the rule of law in breach of Principle 1 of the SRA Principles 2011; and
(b) Failed to behave in a way that maintains the trust the public places in him and the provision of legal services in breach of Principle 6 of the SRA Principles 2011.
Why the agreed outcome is appropriate
4.1. The SRA considers that the agreed outcome is appropriate as the conditions in rule 3.1 of the SRA Disciplinary Rules 2011 are met, in that:

(a) the conduct was deliberate or reckless;
(b) the agreed outcome is a proportionate outcome in the public interest;
(c) the conduct was neither trivial nor justifiably inadvertent.
4.2. Mr Lacey has explained that he was dealing with some difficult personal circumstances at the time, which he believes had an impact on his conduct.

4.3. The SRA considers it appropriate that this agreement is published in the interests of transparency in the regulatory and disciplinary process.

Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this Agreement
5.1. Mr Lacey agrees that he will not act in any way which is inconsistent with this agreement such as, for example, by denying the admissions made in this agreement.

5.2. If Mr Lacey acts in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement the conduct which is subject to this agreement may be subject to further consideration by the SRA. That may result in a disciplinary sanction or a referral to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal on the original facts and allegations. Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement may also constitute a separate breach of Principles 2, 6 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2011.

Costs
6.1. Mr Lacey agrees to pay the costs of the SRA's investigation in the sum of ?600. Such costs are due within 28 days of a statement of costs due being issued by the SRA.

Was this review helpful?  
Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

Respond   Report abuse

Subscribe to updates

Complete the form below to be notified of new reviews or responses added for this solicitor.


terms of use

Enter this code » Verify

Related links

About us
Legal info
For Solicitors
FAQ
22611 solicitor reviews

3,723,006 page views