An Epsom lawyer has been fined after he failed to fully disclose that he was in a relationship with a woman he was representing in a divorce case.

Richard Harbord, of East Street's Harbord & Co, enjoyed trips to Paris and Barcelona with the woman and spent Christmas with the her while representing her.

The woman had won an order for her husband to fund her legal costs - around £200,000 annually - because she was not a wage earner. It was claimed this 'essentially meant the court had ordered [the husband] to fund his wife's new partner's legal practice'.

The judge, who made the order on February 18 2015, said that he might have made a different decision had he known about the relationship.

A Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal held in August ordered Mr Harbord to pay £8,500.

Mr Harbord was described as a ‘private and reserved man’ who found describing the intimate aspects of his relationship ‘acutely embarrassing'.

Although the tribunal found that Mr Harbord ‘did not act with integrity’ it was sympathetic due to the fact he had consulted the Solicitors Regulation Authority ethics advice line on two occasions.

When he had first phoned the ethics advice line in January, the relationship at this point was said to involve ‘friendly kissing but no more’.

The tribunal described the advice Mr Harbord was given by the helpline as ‘opaque’, adding that if he’d ‘received clear and unequivocal advice this would have been of some assistance’.

The progression to a sexual relationship was said to have occurred ‘no later than March 2015’, which would have been after the court ordered the woman's husband to pay her legal fees.

In tribunal's ruling, it said: "Mr Harbord did not act with integrity; he obtained a significant financial advantage to himself by keeping information secret."

However, it also said his personal feelings of embarrassment played a part in leading him to ‘bury his head in the sand’ and described him as a ‘truthful witness’.

It said: "The relationship was significant, it would continue for the foreseeable future. It was not a relationship of convenience’.