Gareth Parfitt
Employee
7264191

Decision - Agreement

Outcome: Regulatory settlement agreement

Outcome date: 15 January 2026

Published date: 20 January 2026

Firm details

Firm or organisation at time of matters giving rise to outcome

Name: Burges Salmon LLP

Address(es): 1 Glass Wharf, Bristol, BS2 0ZX

Firm ID: 401114

Outcome details

This outcome was reached by agreement.

Decision details

1. Agreed outcome

1. Agreed outcome

1.1 Gareth Parfitt (Mr Parfitt), a former employee of Burges Salmon LLP (the Firm), agrees to the following outcome to the investigation of his conduct by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA):

1. he is rebuked
2. to the publication of this agreement
3. he will pay the costs of the investigation of £300.

2. Summary of Facts

2.1 On 7 June 2024, Mr Parfitt pleaded guilty and was convicted at Cardiff Magistrates' Court of assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to section 47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861.

2.2 The offence took place in the early hours of 1 January 2024 when Mr Parfitt was involved in an altercation with a door supervisor at a nightclub.

2.3 Mr Parfitt was sentenced on 9 August 2024 to:

1. Pay compensation of £1500, payable in instalments of £200 each month starting on 30 August 2024.
2. Fine of £500
3. Surcharge of £200.

3. Admissions

3.1 Mr Parfitt makes the following admission which the SRA accepts:

1. by virtue of his conduct and subsequent conviction for assault occasioning actual bodily harm, he has failed to behave in a way that upholds public trust and confidence in the solicitors' profession. This is in breach of Principle 2 of the SRA Principles. 2

4. Why a written rebuke is an appropriate outcome

4.1 The SRA's Enforcement Strategy sets out its approach to the use of its enforcement powers where there has been a failure to meet its standards or requirements.

4.2 When considering the appropriate sanctions and controls in this matter, the SRA has taken into account the admissions made by Mr Parfitt and the following mitigation which he has put forward:

1. he pleaded guilty to the offence.
2. he has shown deep remorse for and insight into his actions, such that the risk of reoffending appears low.
3. his is Mr Parfitt's first offence and out of character.
4. We have seen evidence demonstrating Mr Parfitt was experiencing personal issues, particularly in the 12 months prior, which had driven his actions.

4.3 The SRA considers that a written rebuke is the appropriate outcome because:

1. Mr Parfitt's conduct was serious, and a public sanction is required to maintain standards and to acknowledge there has been a breach of regulatory requirements.
2. Mr Parfitt was directly responsible for his conduct which was reckless in nature.
3. Mr Parfitt has no previous regulatory record.

5. Publication

5.1 The SRA considers it appropriate that this agreement is published in the interests of transparency in the regulatory and disciplinary process. Mr Parfitt agrees to the publication of this agreement.

6. Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement

6.1 Mr Parfitt agrees that he will not deny the admissions made in this agreement or act in any way which is inconsistent with it.

6.2 If Mr Parfitt denies the admissions or acts in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement, the conduct which is subject to this agreement may be considered further by the SRA. That may result in a disciplinary outcome or a referral to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal on the original facts and allegations.

6.3 Denying the admissions made or acting in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement may also constitute a separate breach of principles 2 and 5 of the Principles and paragraph 7.3 of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs.

7. Costs

7.1 Mr Parfitt agrees to pay the costs of the SRA's investigation in the sum of £300. Such costs are due within 28 days of a statement of costs due being issued by the SRA.