High Court Orders Ex-Manager to Repay Law Firm £204,000 Debt

Inner Temple Library Current Awareness

Filed March 25th, 2026

Detected March 26th, 2026

Summary

The High Court has ruled that a former tax senior manager must repay £204,000 to his former law firm, Bark & Co. The court upheld a settlement agreement that allowed the manager five years to introduce work to cover the debt, a deadline he failed to meet. Elements of the original agreement were modified due to SRA referral fee prohibitions.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

The High Court, in a decision by Mr Justice Moody, has upheld a settlement order requiring Andrew Lynch, a former tax senior manager at Bark & Co, to repay £204,000 to the firm. The original settlement, established in 2017 via a Tomlin order, stipulated that Mr Lynch owed the debt and had five years to introduce legal work to Bark & Co, with the fees generated from this work intended to offset the debt. Mr Lynch failed to introduce any work that resulted in billings, leading the firm to seek enforcement of the debt.

While certain clauses related to referrals of criminal fraud, white-collar crime, and money laundering were deemed unenforceable due to SRA prohibitions on referral fees, the court applied the 'blue pencil test' to sever these parts. The remaining provisions, including the admission of the £204,000 debt and the obligation to pay it if referral targets were not met, were found to be enforceable. This ruling means Mr Lynch must now repay the outstanding debt, as the court refused his attempt to withdraw the admission of debt. Compliance officers in law firms should note the strict interpretation of settlement agreements and the implications of SRA rules on referral fees.

What to do next

Review existing settlement agreements for enforceability and compliance with SRA referral fee rules.
Ensure all debt recovery clauses in settlement agreements are clearly defined and legally sound.
Consult with legal counsel regarding the 'blue pencil test' and its application to contract severability.

Penalties

Repayment of £204,000 debt.

Source document (simplified)

Ex-manager who failed to refer work to law firm has to repay debt instead

25 March 2026 Posted by Neil Rose

Bark-Jones: Successful claim

A tax specialist owes his former law firm £204,000 in overpayments he received while an employee after failing to refer work that would cover his debt, the High Court has ruled.

Mr Justice Moody upheld a decision that a 2017 settlement between London criminal law firm Bark & Co and Andrew Lynch was enforceable after the five-year period it gave Mr Lynch to introduce work expired without him doing so.

He also agreed with Ms Recorder Lambert KC that elements of the Tomlin order could be excised because they required Mr Lynch to make referrals which were banned by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA).

Mr Lynch, now a non-solicitor partner at another London law firm, was a tax senior manager at Bark & Co from 2009 to 2016.

Moody J explained that, after he left, the firm sued him for £415,000 said to be due “mainly from allegedly overpaid commission, credit card spending and what are said to be secret commissions”.

It settled by a Tomlin order in late 2017, which stated in clause 1 that Mr Lynch owed Bark & Co £204,000 in overpayments.

To discharge the debt, Mr Lynch undertook to introduce to Bark & Co criminal fraud, white-collar crime, money laundering and civil fraud matters.

The value of this work was to be fees of twice the amount of the debt and introduced within five years.

There were provisions for Mr Lynch to receive a cut of the fees in certain circumstances, but that if he did not meet the target after five years, anything still owing fell immediately due as a contractual debt.

Mr Lynch did not introduce any work that led to billings and Bark & Co sought to enforce the Tomlin order on the basis that it contained an admission of a debt.

It was common ground that the clauses specifying introductions of criminal fraud, white-collar crime and money laundering work were unenforceable because they breached the SRA’s prohibition on referral fees in criminal cases.

The law firm sought the application of the ‘blue pencil test’ to excise them from the order.

Recorder Lambert agreed, excising the offending clauses and holding that the rest of the Tomlin order was enforceable, having refused Mr Lynch permission to withdraw the admission of a debt. She went on to give summary judgment in favour of Giles Bark-Jones, the law firm’s principal.

On appeal, Moody J agreed that the unenforceable parts of the agreement could be severed.

“I consider that the change effected by the blue pencil test would not be such as to change the character of the contract so that it became not the sort of contract that the parties entered into at all.

“It remained a contract of compromise which recognised an existing debt, and it was agreed that it could be paid off or reduced by the referral to the claimant of legal work.”

He accepted that clause 1 was a binding admission as to the existence of a debt and that the recorder correctly directed herself on the law in deciding that it could not be withdrawn.

“I cannot see that the recorder impermissibly took into account an irrelevant factor or overlooked relevant factors,” Moody J concluded.

“I can see no basis on which this court, exercising a review function, can properly interfere with the recorder’s weighing of those factors. I consider that the conclusion she came to was one that was properly open to her.”

By clicking Submit you consent to Legal Futures storing your personal data and confirm you have read our Privacy Policy and section 5 of our Terms & Conditions which deals with user-generated content. All comments will be moderated before posting.

Required fields are marked *
Email address will not be published. Name *

Email *

Comment *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.