Hello!
In this week’s COLP Insider we’ve got three fresh blogs to chew over: how a strong compliance culture becomes a genuine competitive edge; why you shouldn’t treat clients like a commodity; and a plain-English guide to closing your law firm with confidence.
We also unpack the SSB independent review and what the LSB and SRA are saying in response, before returning to Mazur with the regulators’ latest updates. Compliance Corner tackles the mySRA access scramble when the sole signatory is unavailable (and how to avoid it next year). Disciplinary Watch rounds up a fresh run of AML fines, several dishonesty and fabrication cases among junior staff, and reminders about client account misuse.
If you see us at the SRA COLP COFA conference, please say hi!
Jon and the team
Compliance, culture and the competitive edge – Let your ethics speak for you
Samantha Bray says firms can turn ethics into a strong competitive advantage, albeit one that is difficult to quantify.
“Don’t treat clients like commodities” – practical safeguards for mass file transfers
The recent SSB report got us thinking about the mass transfer of client files from one firm to another. This can happen for a multitude of reasons, but one thing that must stay front and centre is the client’s best interests.
Here is a workable framework for approaching the regulatory issues involved.
How to close down your law firm with confidence and compliance
Not that we are wishing this on anyone, but here is a handy round-up of regulatory issues that need to be addressed when closing down your practice.
News and Guidance
SSB review: what the report says — and how the LSB and SRA have responded
The LSB-commissioned independent review by Carson McDowell finds the SRA failed to act “effectively and efficiently” on more than 100 reports about SSB (2019–2024); missed opportunities to intervene earlier; and did not join up intelligence across teams (despite known issues with cavity wall insulation claims).
The SRA had evidence of severe financial distress (including £128m funder debt), yet closed its first forensic investigation without action. SSB collapsed in months later with debts in excess of £200m, leaving many clients exposed to adverse costs despite “no win, no fee” assurances.
The review recommends reforms to report triage, knowledge-sharing and flagging, use of investigatory powers and financial stability assessments, plus tighter controls when transferring client files on firm
In light of the review, it is understood that the LSB has begun enforcement action to publicly censure the SRA and impose performance targets and monitoring. That will be the second public censure in a year, following the Axiom Ince review.
The SRA has apologised and accepted all recommendations from the review, saying it will implement the changes and acknowledging the harm caused to affected consumers.
The Law Society’s view is that a “lack of clear SRA leadership failed to protect consumers”. Incoming President Mark Evans said:
“The SRA must get back to basics…This cannot just be about improving systems and processes but requires culture change and focused leadership.”
Mazur latest: LSB calls for clarity; Law Society issues practice note
In its latest statement, he LSB says the High Court’s Mazur decision does not change the Legal Services Act 2007, but it has exposed confusion about what counts as the reserved activity of conducting litigation. After an urgent meeting with regulators, the LSB has called for clear, accurate guidance and a consistent, sector-wide approach. It has also prioritised CILEx Regulation’s application to allow standalone litigation rights, and will run a review into how regulators historically provided information on litigation rights.
The Law Society has published practical guidance on Mazur and the conduct of litigation. The headline: only individuals and bodies with litigation rights may conduct litigation; being employed by an authorised firm or working “under supervision” is not enough. The note explains what tasks non-authorised staff can still do and flags the consequences of breach.
Expect further guidance across regulators and representative bodies. Litigation teams should review role boundaries, sign-off points and file records now.
“D&Ictionary”: a handy A–Z to keep your language inclusive
No eye rolls, please. The Law Society’s D&Ictionary is an admirable attempt to educate the “uninformed willing” in the language of diversity and inclusion. A quick, practical glossary covering respectful forms of address, gender-inclusive greetings, and plain-English explanations for common terms. It’s designed to improve everyday writing (client care letters, HR docs, marketing) and help you avoid unintended missteps. And yes, “Dear Sirs” is out.
Compliance corner – mySRA headaches
Q: Help – I can’t access the firm’s mySRA account and the annual renewal is due!
A: If your only mySRA signatory is away (or has left suddenly) and the bulk renewal exercise is looming, there are two potential options.
- If the current signatory can still log in (even briefly). Ask them to add an Authorised Signatory (AUS) and/or an Organisation Contact (ORC) via mySRA → My organisation → roles. An ORC can prepare the bulk renewal but only an AUS can sign and submit it.
- If no one can access the organisation account. Write to the SRA Contact Centre (contactcentre@sra.org.uk) asking them to add or replace an AUS/ORC for your firm. Include evidence of authority (e.g. board minute/partner confirmation) and the proposed user’s mySRA username and contact details. Follow up with a call (0370 606 2555) because of the time pressure.
If the COLP/COFA role is vacant or the post-holder is suddenly unavailable. You must notify the SRA within seven days and can apply for Temporary Emergency Authorisation (TEA) to cover the gap. TEA is a short-term approval (typically 28 days) and you must submit the substantive approval during that period.
Practical sequence
- Try to get the existing AUS to log in and add a back-up AUS/ORC immediately. That solves the problem of renewal preparation and signature straightaway
- If they cannot log in, email the Contact Centre with evidence and request they add/replace an AUS urgently; then phone to chase. Log your phone call(s).
- Where the access problem stems from an unexpected COLP/COFA vacancy or incapacity, submit TEA at once and lodge the full application (or deemed approval notification) in parallel.
Governance tips to avoid the scramble next year
Appoint at least two authorised signatories (AUS) and one organisation contact (ORC) so preparation and final sign-off are never dependent on a single person. Make this part of induction and leaver processes (i.e. do they need mySRA access rights granted, revoked or reassigned?).
Put a recurring diary note for early September to review your mySRA roles and contact details, ahead of the October renewals rush. Use that check to confirm who can prepare, who can sign, and who will cover holidays or sickness.
Finally, document the steps in your compliance calendar and keep a simple handover note in your operations manual – so anyone stepping in can see, at a glance, how the renewal gets done.
This is not legal advice. If you have a question you would like us to answer in this section, feel free to send it to info@jonathonbray.com
Free CPD
Recording: Solicitors’ PII market update
PII renewal without the scramble
This session focused on doing the simple things early and well so your professional indemnity renewal isn’t a last-minute firefight. We opened with market context: while renewals now happen year-round, a large tranche of firms still bunch around the autumn peak, putting pressure on brokers, underwriters and finance teams. The practical approach is to start early, leaving around 16 weeks to produce a compelling evidence-led proposal for insurers.
A recurring theme was the one-page renewal narrative: a concise statement of who you are, what’s changed since last year, your key exposures, and the specific controls you’ve strengthened. Underwriters reward clarity and proof over vague assertions and lack of detail.
Common pitfalls came up repeatedly: vague or copy-pasted answers, late or partial submissions, and narratives that haven’t caught up with reality (new services, panel terms, staffing changes). For higher-risk practices (e.g. conveyancing, high volume claims) the message was to show you understand risk and offer evidence of mitigation. Small firms were reminded that lean controls can still be persuasive if they’re specific and evidenced.
Broker engagement was another strand: speak to your broker before you submit to sense-check issues and target markets. After submission, be responsive; and don’t be afraid to get a second opinion.
If you missed it – or want colleagues to catch up – watch the recording here.
Save the date: AML workshop (places limited)
Date: Wednesday 19 November, morning (09:00–12:30)
Format: Live virtual, practical and interactive
Who should attend: MLROs, MLCOs, COLPs/COFAs, managing partners, onboarding leads and anyone responsible for AML systems.
We’re planning a focused half-day session on how to assemble the core building blocks of AML compliance so they actually work together in practice.
Working agenda:
- Firm-wide risk assessment
- Policies and controls
- Client/matter risk assessment
- CDD and source of funds
- Independent audit
- Training
Registration details and full agenda to follow. If you have a thorny CDD/source-of-funds scenario you’d like covered, reply with a brief outline and we’ll try to build it into the Q&A.
Disciplinary Watch
Several themes this month: a wave of AML fines for weak risk assessments and policies (never any actual money laundering); a cluster of dishonesty/fabrication cases involving junior or non-lawyer staff; and continuing reminders about misuse of client account and poor financial controls.
AML systems and controls – fines keep coming
- Solomon Taylor & Shaw LLP – £25,000 AML fine for failing to put in place client and matter risk assessments on files.
- Elmhirst Parker LLP – £25,000 AML fine for lack of a compliant AML policy and client and matter risk assessments.
- Broomfields Solicitors LLP – £16,233 AML fine for an inadequate firm-wide risk assessment (FWRA).
- Clowes & Co. LLP – £12,787 AML fine for deficiencies in firm-wide risk assessment and AML policy.
- Bowers – £4,808 AML fine for having no client and matter risk assessments on eight files.
- Powell Davies Solicitors Limited – £4,039 AML fine.
Dishonesty and misconduct
- Keshia Herbert – legal assistant removed from the profession for dishonestly recording time for work not completed while working from home.
- Fuhad Ahmed – non-lawyer removed after preparing and serving a fabricated expert report on the court.
- Anisah Malik – paralegal struck off for deleting a client’s complaint email and denying receipt.
- Emeka Okoabah – assistant practice manager struck off for submitting reconstructed client files to the Legal Aid Agency as if they were originals, after accidentally destroying the real files.
- Katie Hyden – debt-recovery assistant struck off for misleading the court and fabricating documents, apparently to cover lack of preparation for a hearing.
- Hunsa Khan – trainee solicitor struck off after a serious undeclared conviction came to light (assisting an offender to evade apprehension and prosecution).
Client money and financial controls
- Christopher Paul Topping – rebuked for using the client account as a banking facility, including payments totalling £37,000 to prisoners unconnected to his client.
- Jason Lartey – COLP rebuked for causing or allowing over £50,000 in legal aid receipts (earmarked for professional disbursements) to be held in the office account.
Training your team: Anti-money laundering
The SRA expects that all ‘relevant employees’ practicing within the scope of the Money Laundering Regulations (MLRs) must receive robust anti-money laundering (AML) training. Now is the time to ensure your firm is compliant. Failure to meet these obligations can result in significant fines and regulatory action.
Our comprehensive AML training is designed to equip your team with the knowledge and practical skills needed to identify, prevent, and report suspicious activities, safeguarding your firm from risk. Ensure your firm stays ahead of regulatory requirements and avoids potential pitfalls by enrolling your team today.
Formats available: Online | In person | On-demand
Don’t miss out—request a free quote today!
Most firms need an independent AML audit
What we do – contact us for further information about our services
- Outsourced COLP and COFA support
- COLP coaching
- Compliance audits
- New firm and ABS applications
- Independent AML audits (Regulation 21)
- Training (online, remote, on demand)
- AML and GDPR workshops
- PII reviews
- Remote file reviews
- TPMAs
- Escrow accounts
- AML and sanctions searches
Older posts
“Occam’s Mazur” and the conduct of litigation
Sophie Cisler’s new article takes the heat out of the Mazur case and applies Occam’s razor: what actually changed, what didn’t, and how firms can respond without ripping up their litigation teams.
The mystery of Rule 3.3: Is it or isn’t it a banking facility?
Liz Bond asks: when does a client account transaction become a prohibited “banking facility”?
This is one of the greyest of grey areas in the SRA Accounts Rules. This article contains a clear explanation of the rules, a mitigation checklist, and a sensible conclusion on when you can proceed without straying into Rule 3.3 territory.
Solicitors PII renewal without the scramble: A practical framework
Did you find yourself drafting proposal forms at midnight perilously close to renewal week? Eek! Our latest blog turns the latest webinar with Gary Horswell (Ntegrity) into a plain-English framework you can lift straight into your process.
