Hello lovely people
Welcome to this week’s edition of COLP Insider. This week we look at the Legal Ombudsman’s new naming-and-shaming approach and how a solicitor found himself being struck off for trying to stop an SRA report. We also have a write up of this week’s ask-us-anything style webinar (pretty successful, I think we’ll do it again).
Plus the usual news and disciplinary cases.
Yesterday, I was fortunate enough to be invited to speak about the latest LSAG guidance by the nice people at Thirdfort. A free recording is available below – perfect sun lounger listening material.
This is the last edition before the summer break, so we’ll see you in September. Have a great summer!
Jon and the team.
Compliance Officers Anonymous: real talk on conflicts, AML and sleepless nights
In our most candid webinar yet, compliance officers shared the questions that keep them up at night — from difficult billing complaints and AML headaches to whether you really have to report that incompetent solicitor on the other side. We summarise the highlights and practical takeaways from a lively, no-barriers discussion.
When conduct unravels: undertakings, integrity and the solicitor’s duty
A recent tribunal decision is a stark reminder of the vital importance of integrity in legal practice. A solicitor was struck off for misleading another party, failing to discharge a property undertaking and trying to head off any reporting to the SRA.
We explore what went wrong, how undertakings should be treated, and the wider lessons for all solicitors.
Legal Ombudsman starts publishing upheld complaints — what does this mean for law firms?
In a significant move, the Legal Ombudsman (LeO) is now publishing detailed decisions in cases where complaints have been upheld. The idea is to improve transparency and help clients make informed choices — but for law firms, the stakes have just been raised.
Being publicly named can cause serious reputational harm, even if the underlying issue was a one-off lapse.
From a compliance perspective, is there an opportunity? Firms should view the published decisions as learning opportunities: what could have been done to avoid the issue in the first place, and the complaint escalating? Were there signs of dissatisfaction that could have been addressed earlier?
This post summarises the first three published cases.
News and Guidance
The Legal Ombudsman has begun publishing details of upheld complaints. This is a major step towards greater transparency but raises reputation risks for firms. See our post on this.
The SRA has updated its guidance on publishing regulatory and disciplinary decisions. At a time when the regulator is issuing reprimands left, right and centre, firms should understand what information the regulator may make public and consider how to manage related reputation risks.
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry report highlights the devastating consequences of failing to challenge flawed systems and poor governance. The Law Society urges the legal profession to reflect on its role in ensuring accountability and upholding justice. The lessons? Retain independence, be sceptical, ask difficult questions, and remember our duty to act in the interests of justice.
The Law Society has updated its practice notes on client information requirements and on solicitors offering legal services from unregulated entities. Now is a good time to review your own compliance with these requirements.
A new guide on suspicious activity reports has been published by the Law Society, offering practical insights on when and how to submit SARs. Essential reading for all AML reporting officers and risk & compliance teams.
Compliance corner: Do we still need to tell the SRA if a complaint is settled?
Q: We had a complaint from a client that turned into a claim on our insurance. The client also threatened to go to the SRA. In the end, the matter settled with insurers, and they didn’t pursue it further. Are we still under a duty to report this to the SRA even though it’s been resolved? I’m worried about triggering an unnecessary investigation.
A: It depends on the underlying conduct, not just the outcome. Even if the client drops their complaint and the matter is settled, you may still have a duty to self-report to the SRA if the underlying issue involves a serious breach of the SRA Standards and Regulations (for example, dishonesty, loss of client money, or serious competence failures). Basically anything that you could be fined or reprimanded for.
The SRA expects firms to be open and cooperative, which includes telling them about serious matters promptly, regardless of whether the client proceeds or whether you have resolved it privately.
However, if the matter amounts to a service failing rather than misconduct, and does not raise regulatory concerns (e.g., no breach of regulatory obligations or risk to the public), it might not need to be reported.
As always, if in doubt, it’s wise to make a note of your thought process if you decide not to report.
There’s a school of thought that it is better to be cautious and transparent than risk a non-disclosure becoming a bigger issue later on. And that it shows you are willing to make a report.
That’s not generally an approach we take. However, to be fair the SRA investigators are not sitting there waiting to jump on your firm for the slightest thing. If they can see the issue is relatively minor, they usually quite gladly dispose of the matter without further action.
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
2025 LSAG update: What’s changed and what law firms need to do
Are you prepared for the latest changes to the LSAG guidance?
With the updated AML guidance now in effect, legal professionals need to understand what’s changed and how it affects their responsibilities.
Jonathon Bray joined Harriet Holmes of Thirdfort to break down the key updates and share practical steps to keep your compliance framework up to date.
Compliance Officers Anonymous
Feeling isolated with your compliance worries? This week we ran a session to share questions, frustrations and get practical guidance from our panel.
Thank you to everyone for your contributions, let’s do it again!
Watch the recording (Passcode: C4@S73Kh)
We’ll be back with more free CPD in September.
Disciplinary Watch
- Mansukhlal Shah — Bookkeeper struck off after misappropriating £15,000 of client money. Highlights the importance of strong oversight of finance staff and strict client account controls.
- Stephensons Solicitors LLP — Fined £15,051 for AML failings, including missing client matter risk assessments and gaps in the firm-wide risk assessment.
- Rayhane Nafla — Senior Legal Counsel (not a solicitor) struck off for misrepresenting her employment history. Reinforces the core duty of honesty – even CV embellishments can end a career (see this post).
- Richard Botting and Trevor Howarth — Non-lawyers barred as directors of an ABS after failing to pay experts’ fees despite receiving legal aid payments.
- Shaun Sloyan — Rebuked for authorising release of £2.6 million in client funds without contractual conditions being met, resulting in a significant client account shortfall.
- Stapletons Solicitors Limited — Fined £9,767 for AML failures, including no record of AML policies, missing client matter risk assessments, and failing to establish source of funds.
- Cooklaw Solicitors Ltd — Fined £25,000 for lacking a firm-wide risk assessment, outdated AML policies, and defective CDD on one file. Emphasises that policies must be living documents, reviewed and applied in practice.
- Wordsell & Vintner — Fined £9,744 for AML breaches, including no firm-wide risk assessment, missing policies and procedures, and no client matter risk assessments. Again, the SRA expects firms to show a functioning, risk-based AML approach.
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!
Safeguard your practice: Independent AML Audit
What we do – contact us for further information about our services
- Outsourced COLP and COFA support
- Compliance audits
- New firm and ABS applications
- Independent AML audits (Regulation 21)
- Training (online, remote, on demand)
- AML and GDPR workshops
- PII cost reduction
- Remote file reviews
- TPMAs
- Escrow accounts
- AML and sanctions searches
Stuck between a rock and a SAR(d) place? Balancing privilege and suspicious activity reporting
Are you confident you know when legal professional privilege applies, and when you should be filing a suspicious activity report? This blog explores the grey area at the heart of AML compliance.
How to test your Business Continuity Plan without causing chaos (or setting the building on fire!)
You’ve got a BCP… but will it actually work when the pressure’s on? Here’s a practical guide to testing your plan without giving the team a heart attack.
