A solicitor with 50 years’ experience has been fined by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. The tribunal heard that a sole practitioner with a Bedford-based firm acted for a seller in a conveyancing transaction when they were subject to a complaint by the buyer’s solicitors.

The firm making the complaint claimed the solicitor in question breached an undertaking after a restriction on the title of the property was not removed, causing the buyer’s application to register the property at HM Land Registry to be rejected, thus resulting in considerable loss of time and finance.

When speaking to the Solicitors Regulation Authority, the solicitor denied giving an undertaking despite agreeing to the Law Society’s code of completion for the transaction. The solicitor also completed and sent the Law Society completion information and undertakings form TA13.

When communicating with the SRA, the solicitor stated: “I clearly indicated to [the other solicitors] during the conveyancing process that forms RX3 and ST5 could be provided to enable the restriction on the proprietorship register of the title to be cancelled.”

They went on to explain: “I do not believe that I gave an “undertaking” as such. If I give an undertaking, I actually use the word “undertaking”. The SRA submitted to the tribunal that the provision of the RX3 and ST5 on completion were undertakings and were clear, unequivocal declarations of intention addressed to the buyer who placed reliance on them.

The solicitor (who did not attend the hearing and was not represented) acknowledged that it took far too long to make the application for the Land Registry to cancel the restriction in the proprietorship register of the relevant title. Regardless, the tribunal found the agreement to complete in accordance with the completion code was indeed an undertaking.

The SDT concluded that the solicitor “had provided an unequivocal and categoric confirmation that [they] would provide the documentation upon completion. That confirmation was reasonably relied upon.” It also added that the fact that the solicitor “did not expressly use the work undertake or undertaking did not mean that he had not provided [it].”

Qualified in 1975, the solicitor reportedly failed to cooperate with the SRA investigation after missing various deadlines for responses. He had furthermore been fined £15,000 by the tribunal in 2019 for failing to return client monies promptly and failing to progress at least five probate matters.

Lastly, they were fined £17,500 and ordered to pay costs of £5,500. The solicitor was also barred from acting as a sole practitioner for 18 months.

Source: here.

Compliance Support for Law Firms

All firms must demonstrate and uphold high standards in their AML systems and processes, as well as in their management and supervision. This also involves outlining how the firm operates, including the conduct of staff through set policies, controls and procedures.

At the Regulation & Compliance Office, we can offer a number of outsourced support solutions, including:

• Regulation & Compliance Service – Our Risk Management Assessment Service has been specifically designed to review and update a firm’s approach to risk and compliance management.
• MLR 2017 Regulation 21 Independent Audit – A review of the firm’s approach to regulation and compliance, including AML procedures, with the audit meeting the requirements of Regulation 21 of AML 2017. The output provides the firm with a written gap analysis and solutions to remedy any issues and ensure compliance.
• AML Training Courses – Our Typical AML Training Includes:
  • AML Training for ALL staff to meet the firm’s obligation to provide annual training.
  • One-to-one training for the MLRO and MLCO on their obligations and requirements.

To ask any questions about the Regulation and Compliance Office and how we can support your Law Firm, please call us on 0203 985 8550, complete the online enquiry form here, or email us at info@regulationandcomplianceoffice.co.uk