header-logo header-logo

08 August 2018
Issue: 7805 / Categories: Legal News , Banking
printer mail-detail

Law firms cannot be banks

Solicitors have been issued with a stern warning not to provide banking facilities through a client account, whether to their client or others, after several prosecutions.

Last year, a firm was fined the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal’s (SDT’s) highest ever fine of £500,000 for processing money through a client account in breach of the rules.

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) this week issued a warning against the practice—professional rules state that firms should only have money going through their client account if there is a proper connection to a legal service that the firm has provided.

The risks involved include money laundering, improperly hiding assets in a commercial or matrimonial dispute and inadvertently giving credibility to questionable investment schemes.

In the past 12 months, the SRA has prosecuted 20 solicitors and three firms at the SDT for breaching the rules. Three solicitors were struck off and two more suspended, while the SDT also levied £763,000 of fines.

In its warning, the SRA provides 11 case studies illustrating what is and is not acceptable. A firm acting under a lasting power of attorney, for example, can make payments for the client’s personal living expenses and medical care. A firm instructed to hold commercial rental deposits until a lease ends would not be in breach but if that firm held the rent deposits indefinitely then it would breach the rules.

Paul Philip, SRA Chief Executive, said: ‘Our rules are not intended to prevent usual practice... money passing through the client account can be entirely legitimate where there is a clear legal service being provided.’

The SRA advises that firms cannot justify processing money through the client account due to having a retainer with a client. It cautions against firms holding funds to enable them to pay a client’s routine outgoings, for instance when based abroad.

Issue: 7805 / Categories: Legal News , Banking
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll