header-logo header-logo

Axiom Ince review lays blame on SRA

30 October 2024
Issue: 8092 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Regulatory , Fraud
printer mail-detail

The Legal Services Board (LSB) has initiated enforcement action against the solicitors’ regulator over its handling of Axiom Ince Limited

Axiom Ince Limited closed in October 2023 with the loss of 1,400 jobs and approximately £60m client money missing. In November 2023, the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) launched an investigation into the firm, arresting seven individuals in dawn raids across the South East of England.

An LSB-commissioned independent review by Northern Ireland firm Carson McDowell into the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s (SRA) actions before it closed Axiom Ince has found the SRA ‘did not act adequately, effectively and efficiently’.

The review, published this week, concluded the SRA did not take all the steps it could or should have taken, and its ‘actions and omissions in this matter necessitate change in its procedures to mitigate the possibility of a similar situation arising again’.

Alan Kershaw, LSB chair, said: ‘The Axiom Ince case has caused significant consumer detriment.’

The LSB Board is now initiating the process to set directions under s 32 of the Legal Services Act 2007, requiring the SRA to make changes to better achieve its regulatory objectives.

However, Paul Philip, SRA chief executive, said: ‘At the heart of this issue is a suspected complex and well-hidden fraud carried out by a solicitor, with an ongoing criminal investigation by the SFO.

‘The report recognises our “excellent work” in uncovering the suspected fraud. But there are things we could have done better. We moved quickly last year to tighten up some of our processes.

‘There is a lot in the report that we don’t agree with, and we don’t understand the basis for enforcement action. We will be consulting soon on changes to better protect clients’ money. This will include exploring the more radical solution of whether we should stop law firms holding client money.’

Law Society president Richard Atkinson said: ‘While the events leading to Axiom’s collapse were happening, the SRA was focused on increasing its fining powers and proposing regulatory expansion rather than tackling the known risks from accumulator style firms and ensuring its operations were joined up and laser focused on protecting consumers.’

Issue: 8092 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Regulatory , Fraud
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Red Lion Chambers—Maurice MacSweeney

Red Lion Chambers—Maurice MacSweeney

Set creates new client and business development role amid growth

Kingsley Napley—Tim Lowles

Kingsley Napley—Tim Lowles

Sports disputes practice launchedwith partner appointment

mfg Solicitors—Tom Evans

mfg Solicitors—Tom Evans

Tax and succession planning offering expands with returning partner

NEWS
The rank of King’s Counsel (KC) has been awarded to 96 barristers, and no solicitors, in the latest silk round
Neurotechnology is poised to transform contract law—and unsettle it. Writing in NLJ this week, Harry Lambert, barrister at Outer Temple Chambers and founder of the Centre for Neurotechnology & Law, and Dr Michelle Sharpe, barrister at the Victorian Bar, explore how brain–computer interfaces could both prove and undermine consent
Comparators remain the fault line of discrimination law. In this week's NLJ, Anjali Malik, partner at Bellevue Law, and Mukhtiar Singh, barrister at Doughty Street Chambers, review a bumper year of appellate guidance clarifying how tribunals should approach ‘actual’ and ‘evidential’ comparators. A new six-stage framework stresses a simple starting point: identify the treatment first
In cross-border divorces, domicile can decide everything. In NLJ this week, Jennifer Headon, legal director and head of international family, Isobel Inkley, solicitor, and Fiona Collins, trainee solicitor, all at Birketts LLP, unpack a Court of Appeal ruling that re-centres nuance in jurisdiction disputes. The court held that once a domicile of choice is established, the burden lies on the party asserting its loss
Can a chief constable be held responsible for disobedient officers? Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth, professor of public law at De Montfort University, examines a Court of Appeal ruling that answers firmly: yes
back-to-top-scroll