Another edition of COLP Insider, another round of regulatory fun and games…
In this edition we’re looking at three themes that keep cropping up in conversations with clients. First, difficult clients – and how to disengage safely when the relationship has run its course. Sophie’s piece on “dumping” clients takes the sting out of a topic most firms avoid until it’s too late. Second, the fallout from Mazur and what it really means for who is allowed to run your litigation files. And third, the SRA’s renewed focus on source of funds and source of wealth – still a rich seam of fines for the regulator.
We’ve also included a look at WhatsApp and client communication (convenience vs control), the SRA’s new business plan and motor finance guidance, the latest on Mazur from the LSB and Law Society, sanctions list changes and a useful SARs case study booklet from the NCA.
There are only a few spaces left for next week’s AML workshop, so please do sign up soon if you would like half a day of free CPD.
Finally, I am really excited to announce that Sean Hankin has joined us. We have wanted to expand our COFA and client account support for ages, and Sean gives us over 30 years regulatory experience to draw upon. Please see below for the types of support we can now offer.
Happy Friday
Jon and the team.
It’s not me, it’s you: How to dump your client
In this new piece, Sophie takes on a topic most firms would rather avoid – how (and when) to stop acting for a client who is costing you far more than they’re worth. From serial late-payers and scope-creepers, to bullies and boundary-pushers, she looks at the warning signs that it’s time to walk away and the regulatory points you need to have in mind when you do.
If you’ve ever found yourself saying “never again” after a nightmare matter, Sophie’s pragmatic approach to client disengagement is well worth a read.
Mazur and the conduct of litigation: who is really running your cases?
Who is really running your litigation files – the authorised litigator on the letterhead, or the experienced paralegal doing all the work?
In this article we unpack Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys and what it really means for day-to-day practice. Mazur poses some uncomfortable questions about litigation models, job titles, supervision and even self-reporting to the SRA.
If your business model relies on non-authorised staff “running” cases under light-touch oversight, this is one to read before your next risk and governance meeting.
Source of funds: A source of fines
Is your “source of funds” work really as good as you think?
The SRA’s latest thematic review suggests otherwise, with more than one in ten relevant files showing no source of funds checks at all – and plenty more where fee-earners gathered paperwork but didn’t properly scrutinise it. This new article unpacks what the regulator actually expects on source of funds and source of wealth, why firms are still getting it wrong, and the practical steps you can take to keep your name off the fines list.
WhatsApp and solicitor-client communication: convenience at a cost?
Does your firm really know what’s happening in its WhatsApp chats?
WhatsApp feels like the perfect tool for busy lawyers and clients – quick, convenient and always to hand. But as we explore in this new blog, that convenience comes at a serious cost to supervision, record-keeping and confidentiality. When legal advice lives in private chat threads on personal phones, can you honestly say you still have a complete file, a defensible audit trail and control over client data?
News and Guidance
SRA’s next priorities revealed
The SRA’s 2025/26 business plan signals a focus on three core areas: consumer protection around client money (this is clearly back on the agenda), high-volume consumer claims, and professional ethics. It also confirms a significant investment in risk and data capability and more investigators, with investigations and misconduct reports already sharply up on last year.
The regulator also has a brand new CEO, who is likely to have her own thought’s on the SRA’s strategic direction.
Motor finance claims: SRA reminds firms of duties as FCA eyes redress scheme
The SRA has issued fresh guidance to firms running motor finance commission claims, against the backdrop of the FCA’s consultation on an industry-wide redress scheme. The regulator expects firms to explain clearly what the Supreme Court ruling and the proposed FCA scheme mean for each client, and to tell prospective clients – before they sign up – that they may be able to pursue redress themselves, free of charge via the scheme.
Firms are also reminded to keep a close eye on how CMC referrers are sourcing clients, ensure that marketing is accurate and not misleading, and give clients the best possible information about costs, termination rights and any exit fees. In line with the SRA’s current focus on high volume claims, the message is that if it finds evidence of firms failing to act in clients’ best interests on motor finance claims, it will take action.
LSB steps in on Mazur
The Legal Services Board has issued a formal statement on the Mazur decision, stressing that the judgment does not change the law under the Legal Services Act 2007 but has exposed serious confusion about how “conduct of litigation” has been understood in practice. The super-regulator will launch a review into how the SRA and CILEX have previously ensured that information on litigation rights was “accurate and reliable”.
Meanwhile the Law Society has published guidance in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys: what it means for litigators.
Sanctions list change
From 28 January 2026, OFSI’s consolidated sanctions list will no longer be published. The UK Sanctions List will be the only list firms will be able to search. Update links in your policies and procedures.
Consultation on future of AML supervision
HM Treasury has opened a major consultation on how the new single anti-money laundering supervisor for professional services – the FCA – will actually operate in practice. The consultation runs until 24 December 2025 (Merry Christmas!). So if you have views on how the new regime should work (or concerns about life under an FCA supervisor), now is the time to respond and have your voice heard.
NCA publishes new SARs case study booklet
The UK Financial Intelligence Unit (UKFIU) has published its latest SARs Reporter Booklet, giving reporters a snapshot of how law enforcement is actually using suspicious activity reports on the ground. The booklet contains anonymised case studies showing SARs and DAML SARs leading to account freezing orders, forfeiture of hundreds of thousands of pounds, and disruption of serious organised crime, VAT fraud, money mule networks and romance scams.
Compliance corner: What do I actually need in my email footer?
Q: We’re refreshing our branding and want to tidy up our email signatures. What does the SRA actually expect us to include?
A: The email footer is part of your transparency and regulatory information package. Think of it as the digital equivalent of your letterhead.
At a minimum, every fee-earner’s signature should clearly show:
- Your full firm name as registered with the SRA (not just the snappy trading name).
- Your SRA status and number – for example: “Authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA No. 123456)”.
- Your legal entity details – e.g. “XYZ Law LLP, a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales (OC123456)” – plus your registered office address.
- Your VAT number.
That is the core regulatory bit. Most firms will sensibly go further. For example:
- The individual’s professional title and jurisdiction (“Solicitor of England and Wales”).
- A short confidentiality/disclaimer line – for example that emails are confidential, may be privileged and should be notified/deleted if misdirected.
- A reference to any limitation of liability (backed up in your client care letter and terms).
- A link to your website, privacy notice and complaints information (your website should already carry the full transparency information).
- A cybercrime warning if you handle client money – particularly conveyancers. The classic “we will not notify you of changes to our bank details by email” is still worth having.
- Whether or not you accept service by email.
A few practical pointers: keep the wording short and readable, avoid tiny grey fonts, and standardise the template so everyone in the firm is using the same structure. It is worth having someone “own” the footer and review it periodically against SRA rules and Companies House requirements.
And finally: resist the urge to turn your footer into a legal essay. Clear regulatory information, a sensible disclaimer and signposts to fuller information on your website will usually do the job.
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
Free half-day AML workshop
Date: Wednesday 19 November (09:30–13:30)
Format: Live virtual Zoom session, broken into discrete sessions
Who should attend: MLROs, MLCOs, COLPs/COFAs, managing partners, onboarding leads and anyone responsible for AML systems.
In association with our friends at FirstAML, we are excited to invite you to a half-day masterclass-style session.
Our panel will take a fictional firm through the AML framework to ensure they have all the building blocks in place. From risk assessment to training and audit, attendees will come away with a better understanding of how it all fits together.
AML guidance usually focuses on one specific aspect of compliance, at the expense of the broader context of the framework within which it sits. The aim of this session is take a birds eye view, to make AML compliance less daunting for busy practitioners.
Register Here (last few places remaining)
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.
Disciplinary Watch
Waseem Hussain (section 43 order) – Paralegal in an international serious injury team admitted sending two emails that falsely claimed court proceedings and medico-legal instructions had been progressed, in order to “appease” clients. Now banned from working in solicitors’ practices without SRA permission.
N. C. Morris & Co LLP (£25,000 fine – AML) – London firm sanctioned after an AML inspection found missing client/matter risk assessments, weak customer due diligence (including source of funds) and failures to follow its own policies, controls and procedures.
Brockbank Curwen Cain & Hall Limited (rebuke – residual balances) – Cumbrian firm rebuked and given 12 months to clear long-standing residual client balances, with undertakings to document all steps taken to trace clients and distribute funds under the Accounts Rules.
Jeremy Bennett (£4,273 fine – banking facility / AML) – Solicitor allowed over £9.1m to pass through client account to third parties with no proper ledger or documented CMRA, amounting to an unlawful banking facility and AML systems failures.
Annabelle Gauberti (rebuke – misleading status) – Paris-based solicitor rebuked for client care documents that misleadingly used her SRA authorisation details in the firm’s letterhead.
Sarah Louise Kearney (suspension) – Agreed outcome at the SDT for breaches of the Codes of Conduct and Principles 2019 involving lack of integrity, resulting in a fixed-period suspension from practice. The Director had failed to disclose to SRA investigators the extent of her firm’s financial distress. A reminder that not cooperating with the regulator, in itself, can lead to trouble.
James Martin Taylor (strike off) – Immigration partner struck off after admitting dishonesty in repeatedly maintaining to his asylum client, the Home Office, the firm’s COLP and the client’s MP that further submissions had been lodged earlier than they had been. Concealing the original mistake, rather than owning up to it, was fatal.
Stefanie Anne O’Bryen (suspension – AML/accounts) – Fixed-period suspension after agreed findings of breaches of the Codes of Conduct, Money Laundering Regulations and Solicitors Accounts Rules 2019.
Maxmillian Alexander Knowles Campbell (strike off – dishonest applications) – Junior solicitor admitted dishonest exaggeration of academic achievements in a previous pupillage application and giving misleading information to a referee.
The Merriman Partnership Limited (£7,451 fine – CMRAs/AML) – Wiltshire firm fined following an AML proactive supervision inspection which found that on five conveyancing files no client and matter risk assessments (CMRAs) had been completed, despite the firm having otherwise compliant AML controls.
New support for COFAs and finance teams
We’re ramping up our support for COFAs and legal finance teams – with some serious firepower. Sean Hankin (almost 30 years regulatory experience and co-author of the current SRA Accounts Rules) is now delivering bespoke masterclasses for COFAs and accounts staff, focused on what the regulator really expects in 2025.
Alongside the training, we’re offering client account health-checks to stress-test your systems before the SRA (or your reporting accountant) does, and targeted projects to clear stubborn residual balances in a way that keeps both the regulator and clients happy. If your client account keeps you awake at night – or you’d like to make sure it doesn’t – we’d be very happy to talk.
Most firms need an independent AML audit
What we do – contact us for further information about our services
- Outsourced COLP and COFA support
- COLP and COFA coaching
- Compliance audits
- NEW: Client account health checks
- NEW: Residual balance projects
- 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
11 Things we learned at the SRA’s COLP COFA conference 2025
The SRA’s COLP COFA conference was unusually frank this year. From a “more intrusive” supervisory approach to the FCA’s grab for AML supervision, Mazur fallout and the SRA’s view that AI will reshape practice, we’ve distilled 11 takeaways firms need to know about.
Keep calm and CMRA on: Everything we don’t know about FCA supervision of AML
With the FCA set to take over AML supervision, nobody can say exactly how this is going to affect compliance in law firms. Sophie Cisler cuts through the speculation and sets out what firms need to be thinking about while the goalposts are moving.
Turning risk assessments from an admin task into a proper AML control
Too many firms still treat client/matter risk assessments as paperwork, says Ed Marshall. This piece shows how to turn them into a live AML control that drives decisions and actually reduces risk.
