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

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Sidley—Jeremy Trinder

Sidley—Jeremy Trinder

Global finance group strengthened by returning partner in London

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

West End firm strengthens employment and immigration team with partner hire

NEWS
Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
In a striking financial remedies ruling, the High Court cut a wife’s award by 40% for coercive and controlling behaviour. Writing in NLJ this week, Chris Bryden and Nicole Wallace of 4 King’s Bench Walk analyse LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473
A €60.9m award to Kylian Mbappé has refocused attention on football’s controversial ‘ethics bonus’ clauses. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law examines how such provisions sit within French labour law

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

back-to-top-scroll