Decisions and interventions

The SDT ordered that the respondent should pay a fine of £35,000. The respondent was ordered to be made subject to conditions imposed by the SDT as follows: that for a period of three years he (i) had to submit to the Solicitors Regulation Authority Ltd half-yearly accounts commencing on 12 June 2025; (ii) had to submit on a yearly basis his firm-wide risk assessment (FWRA), anti-money laundering policy and training records (re AML) for him and his staff to the SRA commencing on 13 February 2025; and (iii) attain Lexcel accreditation by 31 December 2025. 

Between 26 June 2017 and approximately 31 December 2022, the respondent, trading as ANB Law had failed to have the following: (i) a firm-wide risk assessment in place as required by regulation 18 of the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017 (MLRs 2017); (ii) client and matter risk assessments as required by regulation 28 of the MLRs 2017; (iii) adequate anti-money laundering policies, controls, and procedures as required by regulation 19 of the MLRs 2017; and (iv) any or any adequate anti-money laundering training for staff at his firm as required by regulation 24 of the MLRs 2017. The respondent had thereby breached principles 6 and 8 of the SRA Principles 2011; failed to achieve outcome 7.5 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011; and breached principle 2 of the SRA Principles 2019 and paragraph 7.1 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs, and RFLs (2019 code).

On or around 31 January 2020, the respondent had made a declaration to the SRA which was false and misleading, in that it confirmed that the firm had in place a fully compliant FWRA as required by regulation 18 of the MLRs 2017 when, in fact, there was no such FWRA in place. The respondent had thereby acted in breach of principles 2 and 5 of the 2019 Principles and paragraph 7.4 of the 2019 code.

Between November 2014 and December 2022, the respondent had failed to ensure that client money was returned promptly to the client. He had thereby breached principle 6 of the 2011 Principles; rules 14.3 and 7.1 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011; principle 2 of the 2019 Principles; and rules 2.5 and 6.1 of the SRA accounts Rules 2019.

The level of seriousness of the respondent’s misconduct was high, though the harm fell within the medium range. The SDT was persuaded that neither the protection of the public nor the protection of the reputation of the legal profession justified suspension or strike-off. However, there needed to be further safeguards in place to ensure that the respondent focused on the matters which had brought him before the SDT.

The SDT imposed a fine of £35,000 upon the respondent combined with conditions as set out in its order. The conditions were not to be viewed as restrictions per se but conditions to enable positive change to take place.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £28,000.

On Thursday 3 April 2025, the SRA intervened into the above-named sole practice of Miss Jeanette Birch (deceased), formerly based at Sandbach Enterprise Centre, Wesley Avenue, Sandbach CW11 1DG.

Miss Birch died on 28 March 2025.

The ground for intervention was: it was necessary to intervene to protect the interests of clients or former clients of Miss J Birch (deceased) – paragraph 1(1)(m) of Schedule 1 to the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended).

John Owen of Gordons LLP, 1 New Augustus Street, Bradford BD1 5LL (tel: 0333 987 5620; email: intervention@gordonsllp.com), has been appointed as intervention agent.

The first date of attendance was 3 April 2025.