A series of recent enforcement outcomes from the SRA and the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) highlights the regulator’s focus on three main areas: professional integrity, safeguarding client money, and effective AML governance.

While the cases vary widely in seriousness, from rebukes to permanent removal from practice, they collectively reinforce the idea that regulatory compliance depends as much on culture and conduct as it does on systems and controls.

Integrity before the courts is non-negotiable

The most serious outcome arose in the case of Priyank Tanwar, who was removed from practice after the SDT found he had acted dishonestly in proceedings before the Family Court. The tribunal concluded he had misled the court about his whereabouts during a hearing and failed to comply with an earlier order requiring personal attendance or appropriate cover.

The tribunal rejected his explanation that he misunderstood the judge’s question and held that dishonesty had been proved, leaving removal from the rolls as the inevitable sanction in the absence of exceptional circumstances.

The case reinforces the principle that misleading the court strikes at the heart of the solicitor’s role as an officer of the court and will almost invariably lead to removal from the profession.

Personal conduct in the workplace can amount to professional misconduct

Another SDT decision demonstrates how workplace behaviour can cross into regulatory territory. Timothy Eagle was suspended for 12 months after making sexually inappropriate comments and engaging in unwanted physical contact with four colleagues during a work event at his firm’s premises.

The tribunal emphasised the seriousness of the misconduct, particularly given the solicitor’s seniority and the workplace context, and concluded that suspension was required to maintain public confidence in the profession.

Mitigating factors, including early admissions, cooperation, remorse, self-reporting and resignation, prevented a more severe sanction, but the case underlines the regulator’s increasing willingness to treat inappropriate workplace conduct as a matter of professional discipline.

Client money cannot be retained longer than necessary

Issues around the proper handling of client funds remain a regulatory priority. Geraint James received an SRA rebuke after an accountant’s report identified a dormant client balance of over £71K held for up to 16 years in connection with a trust whose original trustees had died.

Although there was no evidence of dishonesty, misuse of funds, or detriment to beneficiaries, the SRA concluded the solicitor had failed to account to beneficiaries within a reasonable period, meaning client money had been retained longer than permitted under the Accounts Rules.

The case serves as a reminder that even historic balances or dormant matters require active management, particularly where trust funds and potential beneficiaries are involved.

Practising without authorisation and accounts failures

In Michelle Niaz, the SDT imposed a nine-month suspension following admissions that the solicitor had practised as a sole practitioner without authorisation and held client money when not entitled to do so.

The tribunal also identified significant accounting deficiencies, including missing reconciliations and accountants’ reports over several years. It assessed her culpability as high and found that clients had been placed at risk, as well as determining that her conduct demonstrated a lack of integrity.

After the suspension period, the solicitor will remain subject to restrictions on practice.

AML governance remains firmly in the SRA’s sights

Alongside these individual conduct cases, several enforcement outcomes highlight the SRA’s ongoing scrutiny of anti-money laundering compliance frameworks within law firms.

Five firms, J Scott & Co Limited, Gill & Co, Potter Owtram & Peck LLP, Henwood Twenty Two Limited (Robson & Co Solicitors) and Anthony Clark & Co Limited, received financial penalties ranging from around £6K to over £23K for deficiencies in their AML controls.

Across the cases, the failures were strikingly similar and involved:

• absence of a firm-wide risk assessment (FWRA)

• incomplete or outdated policies, controls and procedures (PCPs)

• lack of client and matter risk assessments (CMRAs) at file level

• insufficient monitoring or review of AML frameworks

While no specific instances of money laundering were identified, the SRA emphasised that missing “bedrock” AML controls undermine a firm’s ability to manage risk effectively, which in itself justifies regulatory action.

In most cases the regulator acknowledged remedial steps taken by the firms, including implementing compliant policies and staff training.

What the regulator is saying

Taken together, these decisions highlight three consistent regulatory themes. First, that integrity is fundamental. Misleading the court or acting dishonestly will almost always result in a removal from practice.

Second, professional obligations extend beyond legal work. Workplace behaviour and personal conduct can trigger serious disciplinary consequences.

And third, compliance systems matter. Firms are expected to maintain robust AML frameworks and properly manage client money, even where no harm has occurred.

Firms and practitioners should be aware that regulators expect both strong ethical judgment and effective compliance infrastructure. Failures in either area, whether cultural or procedural, are increasingly likely to result in enforcement action.

In this volatile regulatory environment, the need for firms to adopt agile systems that can keep pace. This is why we developed Omnitrack, our workflow optimisation platform. It includes our AML Client Onboarding and Legal Compliance Suite solutions, all customisable to client process. Learn more here.