header-logo header-logo

20 November 2024
Issue: 8095 / Categories: Legal News , Legal services , Regulatory
printer mail-detail

SRA proposes tighter safeguards on client money

Solicitors could lose their right to handle client money, following the Axiom Ince debacle.

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) launched proposals last week to install tighter safeguards on client money. These include reducing client money held by solicitors, introducing more checks and controls on client money that is held, and reforming payments to, and reimbursements from, the Compensation Fund.

About 7,000 firms (75%) held client money in the year to August 2023, SRA figures show, for reasons ranging from a house purchase to settlements paid for personal injury.

The SRA says it has heard concerns about potential conflicts when managing partners also hold key compliance roles.

It reports hearing from some firms that they rely on income generated from interest earned on client accounts, which may incentivise firms to hold more money than necessary and for longer than needed. One option under consideration is stopping firms retaining any interest earned.

However, Law Society president Richard Atkinson said: ‘Firms should continue to be able to operate client accounts, as they are vital for the effective and efficient delivery of many legal services.  

‘There is a danger that radical change will add cost and delay for clients and simply transfer the same or even greater risk from the current client accounts system to any new one. 

‘Following the Legal Services Board’s decision to take enforcement action after its independent review into the SRA’s handling of the collapse of Axiom Ince, a key question that must be asked is how the SRA can improve its own monitoring and enforcement around these kinds of risks as part of its core regulatory function. Simply passing regulatory responsibility elsewhere is unlikely to be the answer.’  

The SRA consultation, ‘Client money in legal services—safeguarding consumers and providing redress’, runs until 21 February 2025.

Issue: 8095 / Categories: Legal News , Legal services , Regulatory
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Forbes Solicitors—Stephen Barnfield

Forbes Solicitors—Stephen Barnfield

Regulatory team boosted by partner hire amid rising health and safety demand

Arc Pensions Law—Kris Weber

Arc Pensions Law—Kris Weber

Legal director promoted to partner at specialist pensions firm

Clarke Willmott—Jonathan Cree

Clarke Willmott—Jonathan Cree

Residential development capability expands with partner hire in Birmingham

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll