By Tony O’Reilly-
A solicitor convicted of stalking has been struck off the roll following a disciplinary tribunal that heard he pursued a course of conduct involving two women, including a vulnerable individual suffering from serious mental health issues, in a case that reflects the legal profession’s increasingly uncompromising stance on integrity, safeguarding and public protection.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) ordered the removal of disgraced Adrian Robert Berkeley(pictured) from the profession after finding allegations of dishonesty and lack of integrity proved. Berkeley, who was admitted as a solicitor in October 1993, has not held a practising certificate since 2015 but remained active in the legal sector as the co-founder of LawFriend, a Manchester-based company offering legal services through a non-authorised business structure.
AD: Capeesh Restaurant
The ruling comes amid a broader regulatory trend in which solicitors found guilty of criminal offences involving harassment, stalking, coercive behaviour, domestic abuse or exploitation of vulnerable individuals have increasingly faced the profession’s most severe sanction.
Over the past decade, the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) and the SDT have repeatedly emphasised that conduct occurring outside traditional legal practice can nevertheless undermine public confidence in the profession and justify removal from the roll.
The tribunal heard that Berkeley became involved with a woman referred to as “Miss G”, whom he met at a speed-dating event. According to evidence presented by the SRA, Miss G was an extremely vulnerable individual who suffered from significant mental health difficulties and had been detained under the Mental Health Act during the relevant period.
AD: Oysterian Sea Food Restaurant And Bar
In one of the most striking aspects of the case, Berkeley was found to have sent an email to Miss G’s sons claiming he had been instructed by their mother, had been appointed to act as her next of kin, intended to pursue legal claims on her behalf and had received instructions regarding her property. The communication further stated that his charging rate was £500 per hour and suggested Miss G intended to transfer ownership of her property to him.
The tribunal heard that Miss G’s sons had no prior knowledge of Berkeley before receiving the communication. Concerned by its contents, one of the sons reported the matter to the SRA, triggering an investigation that would ultimately form part of the disciplinary proceedings.
Opening the case on behalf of the regulator, Susannah Stevens described the seriousness of the circumstances, highlighting the vulnerability of the individuals involved and the professional obligations expected of solicitors regardless of whether they are actively practising.
During the investigation, Berkeley provided correspondence and materials to the SRA, including WhatsApp messages in which he referred to having been arrested and bailed in connection with a criminal matter. He subsequently admitted sending the communication to Miss G’s sons but claimed it had been intended as a means of provoking a response and determining whether they genuinely cared for their mother or were acting against her interests.
However, the tribunal rejected his explanations and found significant elements of the communication to be misleading. In particular, the SDT accepted the SRA’s submission that Berkeley’s claim to charge £500 per hour was false and dishonest.
The disciplinary proceedings also examined Berkeley’s conduct towards a second woman, referred to as Ms A. The tribunal heard that between June and November 2023 he engaged in behaviour that led to criminal proceedings and ultimately a conviction for stalking involving serious alarm or distress. Manchester Magistrates’ Court convicted Berkeley in June 2024 following a trial at which Ms A gave evidence. He received a 26-week prison sentence suspended for 18 months.
Evidence before the tribunal indicated that Berkeley continued aspects of his conduct despite police intervention and formal warnings. The SRA argued that his behaviour demonstrated a disregard for legal boundaries and the welfare of those affected.
Addressing the tribunal, Stevens emphasised the wider public interest considerations at stake.
“Violence against women cannot be tolerated in today’s day and age by any professional,” she said.
The comments reflect a growing focus within professional regulation on conduct linked to harassment, coercion, stalking and gender-based abuse. Across the legal profession, regulators have faced mounting pressure in recent years to ensure that misconduct involving vulnerable individuals is treated as a serious threat to public confidence.
The issue has become particularly prominent following wider societal changes brought about by movements such as #MeToo and increased public scrutiny of professional accountability. Regulators across numerous sectors, including law, medicine, policing and finance, have strengthened their emphasis on personal conduct and ethical behaviour beyond the workplace.
Historically, disciplinary proceedings involving solicitors often centred on client money, accounting breaches, conflicts of interest and professional negligence. While those issues remain central to regulation, there has been a marked increase in cases where criminal convictions, abusive behaviour and conduct in private life have led to severe professional consequences.
The SRA has consistently argued that solicitors occupy positions of trust and authority that require them to maintain high standards both professionally and personally. Tribunals have repeatedly accepted that behaviour demonstrating dishonesty, exploitation, harassment or disregard for the law can fundamentally undermine public confidence in the profession regardless of whether clients are directly affected.
Recent years have seen solicitors struck off for offences ranging from domestic abuse and sexual misconduct to stalking, fraud and coercive behaviour. In many of these cases, tribunals have stressed that the profession’s reputation depends on public confidence that those entrusted with legal responsibilities will themselves respect the law and protect vulnerable individuals.
The Berkeley decision also reflects another recurring theme within modern legal regulation: the protection of individuals experiencing mental health difficulties or other vulnerabilities. Regulators have increasingly treated attempts to exploit, manipulate or improperly influence vulnerable people as aggravating factors warranting severe sanctions.
In delivering the tribunal’s decision, chair Mark Millin concluded that both allegations had been proved and that Berkeley’s conduct demonstrated both dishonesty and a lack of integrity.
“The respondent acted in a manner which failed to uphold the public trust and confidence in the solicitor’s profession,” he said.
That conclusion ultimately left little room for any sanction short of removal from the profession. The tribunal ordered Berkeley to be struck off the roll and directed him to pay costs of £22,608.
The ruling sends a clear message about the standards expected of solicitors in modern practice. As regulators continue to broaden their focus beyond traditional professional misconduct to encompass wider issues of personal behaviour, safeguarding and public protection, cases involving criminal conduct and vulnerable individuals are increasingly likely to result in the profession’s ultimate sanction.
For the SRA and the tribunal, the case underscores a principle that has become central to contemporary legal regulation. That is membership of the profession carries obligations that extend far beyond the office door, and conduct that damages trust in solicitors can have career-ending consequences irrespective of whether it occurs within legal practice itself.
AD: Heritage And Restaurant Lounge Bar