- Publication Date
- 2021-06-10
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) conducted an on-site forensic investigation of the law firm, which began in August 2018. During the period from May 2016 to April 2020, the relevant lawyer was responsible for overseeing staff supervision and ensuring compliance with the firm's anti-money laundering policies.
In December 2017, the firm began work on a probate matter, despite lacking substantial experience in this area. In connection with this probate matter, the firm received £57,908.50 in client monies without operating a client account. The relevant lawyer was the supervising partner for the fee-earners handling the probate work, but failed to effectively carry out supervisory responsibilities. The firm accepted client monies without conducting proper client due diligence (CDD) to verify the client's identity. Additionally, debts of the estate totaling £6,050.94 were not satisfied before the distribution of estate monies to beneficiaries.
During this period, the relevant lawyer left the firm for extended periods between February and August 2018 and was rarely in the UK or attending the firm's office after work had commenced on the client matter. The firm's anti-money laundering policies and procedures were not compliant with the Money Laundering Regulations 2017.
The relevant lawyer admitted to failing to adequately supervise staff or ensure work was conducted in areas where the firm had expertise, and to overseeing the handling of client monies without maintaining a client account. The SRA took into account the lawyer's cooperation with the investigation and the steps taken to amend and update the firm's policies to ensure compliance with relevant regulations. Procedures for handling client money were also updated to ensure compliance. The relevant lawyer's current Practicing Certificate is subject to several conditions.
The agreed outcome of the investigation included a fine of £1,800 for the relevant lawyer, who also agreed to the publication of the agreement and to pay the investigation costs.
The decision to impose conditions on the relevant lawyer's practicing certificate, including prohibiting him from being a manager or owner of an authorized body and from practicing on his own account, was deemed necessary in the public interest and proportionate to the regulatory objectives and principles.