Decisions and interventions

The SDT ordered that the respondent should pay a fine of £2,500.

 

The respondent had failed to provide a specimen of breath for analysis in the course of an investigation into whether he had committed an offence under sections 3A, 4, 5 or 5A of the Road Traffic Act 1988. He had thereby breached principles 1, 2 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019. He was charged with an offence of failing to provide a specimen of breath, contrary to section 7(6) of the Road Traffic Act, and subsequently pleaded guilty to that offence. He received a sentence that included a 17-month driving ban (to be reduced by 17 weeks upon completion of a drink-drive rehabilitation course) and a fine of £3,846.

The respondent’s actions were the result of a significant error of judgement. He was an experienced solicitor who should have known better. However, he had shown deep remorse, apologised for his actions and promptly accepted full responsibility for them. He had been transparent and open with his regulator throughout and had entered a guilty plea at the first opportunity.

By virtue of the respondent’s conviction described above, he had impacted on the reputation of the profession. However, he had shown genuine insight by making open and frank disclosures, had fully cooperated with the applicant and had made prompt and appropriate admissions.  

The respondent’s misconduct had not been calculated or repeated, nor had it continued over a period of time, nor had any other serious aggravating factors been present. Nevertheless, it had involved the deliberate commission of a criminal offence resulting in a criminal penalty.

The SDT did not consider that the respondent remained a risk to the public but recognised that the reputation of the profession had to be safeguarded.

The appropriate and proportionate sanction was to order the respondent to pay a fine of £2,500.

The SDT ordered that there be no order as to costs.

The SDT ordered that the first respondent (a recognised body) and the second respondent (admitted 2004) should each pay a fine of £25,000.

The SDT further ordered that the second respondent would be subject to conditions imposed indefinitely by it as follows: that he might not: (i) be a head of legal practice/compliance officer for legal practice or a head of finance and administration/compliance officer for finance and administration/money laundering reporting officer and money laundering compliance officer without the permission of the Solicitors Regulation Authority; (ii) with liberty to either party to apply to the SDT to vary those conditions.

An SRA investigation had commenced at the firm in 2022 and had identified issues that included a failure to undertake accurate reconciliations of the client account, a client account shortfall of £40,636 that arose from 423 client matters, additionally, the firm held £287,821.46 of residual balances across 1,786 matters.

The second respondent had failed to ensure that the firm complied with its obligations under the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017 (MLRs 2017), namely by failing to ensure that the firm had a firm-wide risk assessment as required by regulation 18 of MLRs 2017. It was also alleged that the second respondent had acted recklessly when declaring to the SRA that a compliant firm-wide risk assessment was in place.

The first and second respondents admitted the allegations, which included breaches of the SRA Accounts Rules 2019, SRA Principles 2011/2019 and SRA Code of Conduct 2011; an agreed factual background was presented jointly by both respondents and the SRA.

The SDT had found all allegations proved.

The firm was a recognised body authorised for all legal services and had no previous regulatory or disciplinary findings.

The second respondent had no previous regulatory or disciplinary findings. At material times he was a director at the firm and the person with significant control of the company, and held the following roles at the firm: compliance officer for legal practice; compliance officer for finance and administration; money laundering reporting officer; and money laundering compliance officer (MLCO).

In assessing culpability, the SDT accepted that there was no blameworthy motivation for the misconduct and it was not planned. The first respondent was, however, by reason of being a firm, directly responsible and had full control over the circumstances giving rise to the misconduct. Its responsibility for the breaches was shared with the second respondent, for whom it had overarching responsibility.

There had been no evidence of loss to individual clients or claims on the Compensation Fund, and so the harm in the case was reputational rather than direct.

The matter was mitigated by the fact that the first respondent had shown genuine insight.

The seriousness of the misconduct was such that the appropriate sanction was a financial penalty.

There was no specific motivation for the misconduct. It had been the result of a cavalier attitude by the second respondent in respect of the range of regulatory obligations that applied to his practice at the material time.

There had been a failure to comply with fundamental regulatory requirements in circumstances where the second respondent was directly responsible for compliance at the firm: that enhanced his culpability which was high given his status as MLCO for the firm.

The first and second respondents were ordered to pay costs of £38,000 plus VAT, on the basis of joint and several liability.

On 6 March 2025, the Adjudication Panel resolved to intervene into the above-named recognised body, formerly at Ground Floor, 59-61 Kingsway, Manchester M19 2LL and into the practice of Asim Ali at the firm.

The grounds for intervention in relation to Asim Ali were:

• Ali had failed to comply with the rules made under section 31 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended) – (paragraph 1(1)(c) of schedule 1 to the act).
• It was necessary to intervene to protect the interests of clients of Ali and/or the interests of the beneficiaries of any trust of which Ali is or was a trustee – paragraph 1(1)(m) of schedule 1 to the act.

The grounds for intervention in relation to Joseph Daniel Solicitors Ltd were:

• Ali, as the sole manager of the firm, and the firm itself have failed to comply with the rules applicable to them as a manager of the firm and the firm itself by virtue of section 9 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (as amended) – paragraph 32(1)(a) of schedule 2 to the act.
• It was necessary to intervene to protect the interests of clients of Joseph Daniel Solicitors Ltd, and/or the interests of the beneficiaries of any trust of which Joseph Daniel Solicitors Ltd is or was a trustee, and/or the interests of beneficiaries of any trust of which a person who is or was a manager or employee of Joseph Daniel Solicitors Ltd is or was a trustee in that person’s capacity as such a manager or employee – paragraph 32(1)(e) of schedule 2 to the act.

John Owen of Gordons LLP, 1 New Augustus Street, Bradford BD1 5LL (tel: 0113 227 0386, email: intervention@gordonsllp.com) has been appointed to act as intervention agent. The first date of attendance was 11 March 2025.

Ali is believed to be overseas and has failed to engage with the SRA. As a result, the current location of the firm’s practice documents is unknown.

Ali’s practising certificate has been suspended as a result of the intervention decision.

 On Thursday 6 March 2025, the SRA intervened into the practice of Rasheed Kofi Sarpong and his firm Sterling Winshaw Solicitors Ltd, of 104 Atlas Business Centre, London NW2 7HJ.

The grounds for intervention into the practice of Rasheed Kofi Sarpong were:

• Sarpong had failed to comply with rules (paragraph 1(1)(c) of schedule 1– part I to the Solicitors Act 1974).
• It was necessary to intervene to protect the interests of clients or former clients and any beneficiaries of any trust of which Sarpong is or was a trustee (paragraph 1(1)(m) of schedule 1 – part I to the Solicitors Act 1974).

The grounds for intervention into Sterling Winshaw Solicitors Ltd were:

• Sarpong, as a manager of the firm, and the firm itself have failed to comply with rules applicable to them both by virtue of section 9 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (paragraph 32(1)(a) of schedule 2 to that act).
• It was necessary to intervene to protect the interests of clients or former clients, the interests of beneficiaries of any trust of which the firm is or was a trustee, or the interests of the beneficiaries of any trust of which a person who is or was a manager or employee of the firm is or was a trustee in that person’s capacity as a manager or employee (paragraph 32(1)(e) of schedule 2 to the Administration of Justice Act 1985).

Due to the fact that the SRA has intervened on the grounds of failure to comply with rules, Sarpong’s practising certificate is suspended.

Chris Evans of Lester Aldridge, Russell House, Oxford Road, Bournemouth BH8 8EX, email: Intervention.Enquiries@LA-Law.com, tel: 01202 786 341, has been appointed as intervention agent.