A small firm which failed to have in place a compliance officer for three years and missed transparency requirements two years ago has been fined more than £20,000.
The breaches, which have since been remedied, were admitted by Southampton-based David Ebert LLP through an agreed outcome with the Solicitors Regulation Authority. The proposed fine and £10,000 costs were approved by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal during a one-day hearing last month.
The tribunal heard that the firm, which has eight qualified staff, was fined £1,300 in 2022 for failing to publish price and service information prominently on its website. The fine was paid six months after the SRA adjudicator’s decision.
The firm continued to be in breach of transparency rules despite regular correspondence from the SRA and blamed problems with its website provider. A review of the site in February 2023 confirmed that the firm complied with the requirements as set out in the transparency rules.
The firm had an appointed compliance officer for legal practice until July 2022 but then submitted the wrong form in applying to appoint a replacement. The SRA notified the firm in July 2022 that a problem remained but despite regular reminders over the subsequent months this was not fixed. It was not until December 2023 that an application to appoint a COLP was approved.
The situation was similar for the role of compliance officer for finance and administration (COFA). The firm had applied in November 2020 to appoint someone but had been notified by the SRA that the application was ineligible. A further application was submitted in 2021 but again was not approved, and in November that year the firm was warned to make another application immediately or face an investigation.
The continued breach was raised in 2022 when the SRA looked into the transparency issues: again an application was made but with insufficient information, and a COFA was finally approved only in October 2023.
The firm admitted that it did not act quickly enough to resolve breaches but submitted that it was going through a period of transformation and had allowed issues to be overlooked. Misconduct was not deliberate but was due to circumstance and administrative challenges, and no harm was caused.
The tribunal agreed that a penalty of £20,723 was proportionate and in the public interest, taking account of the firm’s co-operation with proceedings and early admission of breaches.
7 Readers' comments