Regulators warn against Graphene and other enticing ‘investments’

Posted on July 30, 2015 by Jeremy Barnett

The FCA and SRA have beefed up their warnings about ‘High Yield’ investments as ingenious fraudstersthink up new enticing schemes to attract investors who are keen to beat the low interest ratescurrently being offered by banks and building societies.√جª¬ø

Click here for more: regulatory & disciplinary law SRA | Comments closed

Reporting Misconduct to the SRA: SRA lawyer

Posted on February 25, 2020 by Jeremy Barnett

Solicitors who manage firms often ask about the extent of their duty to disclose matters that have arisen, to the SRA. The Duty to Disclose is governed by O (10.4) which sets out that  ‘you must report to the SRA promptly, serious misconduct by any person or firm authorised by the SRA, or any employee, manager or owner of any such firm (taking into account, where necessary, your duty of confidentiality to your client).’√جª¬ø

Click here for more: SRA | Comments closed

SRA achieve strike off again over Escrow Account

Posted on January 23, 2016 by Jeremy Barnett

In a decision dated 11th January 2016, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal have struck off another solicitor who faced allegations of Dishonesty and Lack of Integrity over the use of his client account as an Escrow Account for transactions that were suspicious and had the hallmarks of dubious financial investment schemes.

Click here for more: sdt specialist SRA | Comments closed

SRA appeal fine to suspension | SDT lawyer

Posted on December 18, 2014 by Jeremy Barnett

The Law Society Gazette has reported that the SRA sucessfully appealed against a fine of £2000 that was imposed by the SDT in July 2013. A suspension order was imposed as the sanction was not sufficient to maintain public confidence in the profession.

Click here for more: sdt specialist SRA | Comments closed

SRA Calm Referral Fee ban fears

Posted on April 7, 2014 by Jeremy Barnett

The Law Society Gazette has reported that the SRA have moved to calm fears over interpretation of LASPO in relation to the forthcoming ban on referral fees in PI cases.

Click here for more: SRA | Comments closed

SRA climbs down on Audit Rules | SRA Lawyer

Posted on September 30, 2014 by Jeremy Barnett

The Law Sociecty Gazette has reported that the SRA has backed down over its proposal to remove the requirement to submit accounts rules every year. Instead, the requirement will only be where accounts have been qualified by an accountant for a mistake or an area of concern.

Click here for more: sdt specialist SRA | Comments closed

SRA Right to Intervene | SRA Lawyer

Posted on May 14, 2015 by Jeremy Barnett

Jeremy Barnett recently appeared In a rare High Court appeal against an intervention order that had been imposed by an SRA Adjudication Panel.

Click here for more: sdt specialist Interesting cases | Comments closed

SRA take action | SRA Lawyer

Posted on November 13, 2014 by Jeremy Barnett

Following a period of relative calm, the SRA have undertaken a flourish of activity in respect of high risk investment fraud, a legal financing fund and escrow services for an insurance guarantee loan scheme.

Click here for more: News and current instructions | Comments closed

SRA take action over Assigned Risks Pool

Posted on April 7, 2014 by Jeremy Barnett

At its June 20 I 0 meeting, the SRA Board identified that further work should be undertaken to tighten the management of those firms in the Assigned Risks Pool (ARP), including those firms who were not paying premiums. One of the concerns expressed by both the profession and the insurers was that inadequate action was taken to manage firms within the ARP.

Click here for more: sdt specialist regulatory & disciplinary law SRA | Comments closed

Mostyn J joins debate on SRA Lack of Integrity test

Posted on April 12, 2017 by Jeremy Barnett

Two interesting decisions have come from the High Court which offer conflicting views of the definiton of ‘Lack of Integrity’. In Newell-Austin v SRA [2017] EWHC 411√جª¬ø  on 3rd March 2017, Morris J followed a line of authority that concluded that lack of integrity did not equate to dishonesty and that there is no subjective element.

Today however, in the decision in Malins v [SRA 2017 ] EWHC 835 (Admin) , Mostyn J clearly came to a contrary view and decided that Dishonesty and Lack of Integrity are in effect the same. This is important as Dishonesty carries with it almost automatic strike off, and the courts have recently indicated that ‘Lack of Integrity’ in practice may have the same result, but is easier to prove as there is no subjective test. 

Click here for more: SRA | Comments closed