By John Hyde2020-12-21T13:14:00+00:00
The Solicitors Regulation Authority has stated it will continue to act upon allegations of sexual misconduct despite losing a high-profile case in the High Court last month.
SRA board chair Anna Bradley confirmed in a statement today that the regulator would not appeal the judgment involving former Freshfields partner Ryan Beckwith following advice from leading counsel.
Beckwith had been fined £35,000 by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal after he was found to have acted without integrity in his relationship with a junior colleague. This finding – as well as an order to pay £200,000 towards the SRA’s costs – was overturned by the court. Judges said the requirement to act with integrity obliged Beckwith not to take unfair advantage of his colleague, and on the tribunal’s own findings, that had not happened. The tribunal’s final statement that he fell below accepted standards was ‘not coherent’, the court ruled.
Notice: Undefined index: HTTP USER AGENT in
/home/legalease/legalbusiness/releases/20210224120424/wp-content/plugins/social-warfare-pro/lib/social-networks/SWP Whatsapp.php on line
49
/home/legalease/legalbusiness/releases/20210224120424/wp-content/plugins/social-warfare-pro/lib/social-networks/SWP Whatsapp.php on line
49
/home/legalease/legalbusiness/releases/20210224120424/wp-content/plugins/social-warfare-pro/lib/social-networks/SWP Whatsapp.php on line
49
/home/legalease/legalbusiness/releases/20210224120424/wp-content/plugins/social-warfare-pro/lib/social-networks/SWP Whatsapp.php on line
49
/home/legalease/legalbusiness/releases/20210224120424/wp-content/plugins/social-warfare-pro/lib/social-networks/SWP Whatsapp.php on line
49
CMA publishes review of progress in legal services sector
The CMA’s assessment of changes in the legal services sector since its market study has found some positive developments but concludes more progress is needed.
From:
17 December 2020
The CMA made recommendations to legal services regulators to improve transparency by legal firms on price, service and quality to help customers navigate the sector more easily and get value for money. It also recommended that the Government consider whether those using unauthorised providers need stronger protections and that the regulatory framework be reviewed for the longer term.
Transparency
There are clear signs of progress. For example, many more legal firms are now providing information on price, service, redress and regulatory status to help consumers shop around. However, while the evidence suggests that some customers are taking advantage of the changes, there is still work to do as there only appears to have been a limited
By John Hyde2020-12-15T09:32:00+00:00
A solicitor of more than 40 years has agreed to leave the roll after his firm was found guilty of a string of accounting rule breaches.
Malcolm Grumbridge, a sole practitioner at west London firm M C Grumbridge, will apply to remove his name from the roll this month and has undertaken not to apply for readmission.
A regulatory settlement agreement notice published by the SRA stated that inspections of the firm’s books had identified ‘areas of concern’ in relation to compliance with money laundering regulations.
Books had not been accurately maintained, inter-client loans were made without proper written authority of the clients, cash withdrawals were made from the client bank account in favour of Grumbridge, and payments were made into the client bank account with no evidence of an underlying legal transaction.
While a sole principal of Hallows Associates the respondent had:
dishonestly made improper withdrawals and/or transfers in respect of one or more of the client accounts for clients A, G, C, D, E and F, thereby breaching principles 2, 6 and 10 of the SRA Principles 2011, failing to achieve outcome 1.2 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011, and breaching rules 1 and 20 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011;
dishonestly attempted to conceal improper withdrawals from the client account, in breach of his obligations under principles 2, 6 and 10;
dishonestly misled client A, in breach of principles 2, 4, 5 and 6;
dishonestly misled law firm A, estate agent A and the beneficiaries of client D’s estate, in breach of principles 2 and 6;