header-logo header-logo

04 January 2013
Categories: Legal News , Risk management , Regulatory , Profession
printer mail-detail

COLPs and COFAs miss New Year deadline

About 1,000 law firms did not have compliance officers in place on 1 January.

Firms were required to have approved Compliance Officers for Legal Practice (COLPs) and Compliance Officers for Finance and Administration (COFAs) in place by 01 January, however, although individuals were approved at more than 8,800 firms, more than ten per cent of firms have failed to meet the deadline.

Nearly 200 firms had not completed the nomination process.

The Solicitors Regulation Authority said the situation was better than it had anticipated a few weeks before.

It said it will not impose automatic loss of authorisation on firms and individuals who do not receive their approvals in time.

SRA director of risk Andrew Garbutt said: “There are some firms which came very late to the process, or who delayed providing us with further information when required to do so, consequently these have not yet received notification of our decision concerning the nomination.

“In cases where we now have all the information we need, I anticipate we will be able to make a decision shortly. We are making every effort to ensure firms and individuals know the status of their nominations.
“However, despite repeated requests, there remains a number of firms who have not co-operated with us. In these cases, we will begin the appropriate level of enforcement action, including revocation of their authorisation.”

 

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll