A partner in a conveyancing firm has been fined £7,500 and ordered to pay costs of £50,000 by a Council for Licensed Conveyancers adjudication panel after approving transfers of over £363,000 from the firm’s client account to its office account.
The decision of the disciplinary hearing was published on the CLC’s website in November but the case has been widely circulated on social media in recent days. The CLC has criticised coverage of the case that appeared in the Today’s Conveyancer Secret High Street Conveyancer column, which the regulator said presented a distorted picture of the facts.
In a statement shared with Today’s Conveyancer, the CLC said: “No disciplinary decision has been published by the CLC in the past week. The blog appears to refer to a decision published on the CLC’s website some time ago. The CLC treats allegations of misconduct seriously and will not hesitate to refer cases to the Adjudication Panel where appropriate.
“We are concerned by the one-sided and misleading nature of the commentary, which lacks proper context. Disciplinary outcomes must be considered in light of the full facts of each case, and it is inappropriate to draw broad conclusions from a partial and selective account. In this instance, the outcome was appropriate and proportionate in light of the facts that were proved.
“Assertions made without a full understanding of the case risk misrepresenting both the decision and the integrity of the regulatory process.”
The case concerned the transfer of funds made from the client account of a firm to its office account. Allegations against the firm’s partner and manager, who is regulated by the CLC, included the approval of a series of transfers totalling over £360,000.
The disciplinary hearing heard the partner asked the accounts administrator to sign a statement and submit it to the CLC claiming he was not instructed by anyone at the practice to make the transfers, and that the partner “put pressure on him to sign that statement by suggesting that if he did not do so the future of the Practice would be in jeopardy and a large number of people may lose their jobs”.
After hearing the partner admitted misconduct including a failure to protect client money and properly manage the financial affairs of the business, the adjudication panel imposed a fine of £7,500, with an order to pay the CLC’s costs of £50,000.
“Having taken into account the public interest in the effective regulation of licensed conveyancers, the Panel concluded the proposed agreed outcome represented a fair and proportionate resolution of the case,” the November decision noted.
9 responses
It seems to me that a pattern of ineptitude and indifference is emerging at the CLC. One look at the recent decisions of the Adjudication Panel tell you everything you need to know. For a solicitor the client account is sacrosanct and some Licensed Conveyancers adhere to this principle. But for others, some of whom have been caught with their hands in the till twice, they seem to have a sense of entitlement to use the client account as their firms overdraft. Not only that they have been allowed to bully junior meets of staff when challenged. It is unacceptable and the CLC with their light touch regulation should hang their heads in shame at the situation they have allowed to evolve. Perhaps it’s time for a shake up at the clc. As far as I can determine from tge CEO to the head of external relations to the board, they have all been in their positions for far too long. It is no use having these rules if no one enforces them!
The events described in this article should give everyone in the legal profession pause. For the Council for Licensed Conveyancers (CLC), it ought to be a moment of deep reflection.
Last month the Legal Services Board published its mandatory guidance on professional ethics. Its message was unambiguous: every regulator must ensure that ethical duties are not treated as optional extras but as the organising principle of legal practice. That applies just as much to high‑volume transactional work as to any other area of law.
Unfortunately this case is not an isolated administrative lapse. It is a reminder of what happens when the fundamentals of professional integrity are not supervised and enforced with the seriousness the public is entitled to expect.
As someone once observed in another context, “facts don’t cease to be such just because they are ignored.” The facts here point to a regulatory model that now needs to demonstrate that the protection of client money and the upholding of ethical duties are non‑negotiable.
For the profession, this is not about blame. It is about ensuring that every regulator meets the standards the public assumes we already uphold. The LSB has set the direction. Like others the CLC must now follow it with clarity and purpose.
Whatever the circumstances, it still raises a question as to whether a similar case under a different regulator, for example the SRA, would lead to the same outcome.
Any perception that outcomes differ becomes part of the problem in itself.
We live in this eerie world of “moral relativism” at present – as world events centred around the middle east currently show us so clearly; I have witnessed myself this form of relativism in conveyancing – where adhering to Protocols or ethical principles are treated as if they have some degree of flexibility; the era of “Covid” increased such loose conduct and today serves as a convenient excuse not to deal with things properly or indeed, courteously.
If not being struck off for stealing money that does not belong to you regardless of the circumstances, when others have been heavily fined, named and shamed, just for for not having the latest policy document or form in place (even where the professionals concerned have acted with the highest ethical standards) then it is obvious to me that our profession as a whole is now in an a dire state of disorder (and this is probably intentional).
The best legal professional is the one who recognises that above all other considerations, ethics and morality, should centrally guide everything we do in our work and in life – as mentioned by Mr Larcombe in his comment – I do hope we we will enter a new era with these principles in mind.
One the line between client and office accounts has been crossed, it remains blurred. Hasn’t this case proven just how easy it is for them to cross it again (as happened here by this company). When the lines become blurred, one can lean on obfuscation (well, if you’re regulated by the forgiving and benevolent CLC).
I wouldn’t know. My training drilled into my and my colleagues just how important it is not to blur those lines. Not once have I ever thought “I’ll just use this money here, no one will know”. We’ve never even joked about it.
You cannot un-ring a bell. And once we’ve seen a pattern we cannot unsee it.
Would I put my house deposit with that company? No way Jose. There’s a chance they’ll use it to pay that month’s wages. What an awesome way to run a firm.
I am a fan of the ‘Diary of a High Street Conveyancer’ and the weekly blog but I was saddened to read yesterday’s unbalanced article and now the ‘my regulator is better than your regulator’ type comments that have followed.
To those that are quick to put us CLC regulated firms down, please explain to me how the failings of PM Group were able to happen? SRA regulated does not automatically mean better practice. The fallout from the PM Group debacle and the massive impact on the public was inexcusable. At least the CLC identified breaches and worked with the individual to prevent any loss to client. Where was the SRA in protecting the public and the innocent employees of PM Group?
This job is hard enough without the pitch forks coming out internally. There is excellent, good, mediocre and bad practice on both sides so please get off your high horses and stop pitching us against each other.
Having read the actual judgement, it seems that what the CLC could actually prove had to be drastically reduced as the ex-employee whose testimony would have been key to the proceedings did not turn up to the hearing. No evidence, can’t substantiate the charges.
And what happened with the £363,000?? Did the firm make a profit on that money by using it elsewhere? A £7,500 fine and £50,000 payment to the CLC seems comical when the amount of money at risk was substantially higher than this. It is client money, any kind of commingling should be treated as a criminal act and treated in the same way money laundering with a maximum sentence of up to 14 years. No wonder MD’s and CEO’s see this as a an option when they are able to get away with it and potentially profit from the situation too.
I work with both CLC and SRA regulated firms. I always hear the principals of those firms under CLC regulation bemoaning their fate and telling me how frustrating it is to have CLC keeping an eye on them whilst the bigger firms are allowed to go unregulated and unchecked. As an outsider looking in CLC really are unfit for purpose, a view I have framed over many years of seeing their conduct. And also from reporting someone to them twice and not even receiving the courtesy of a response. So I know working for a CLC firm whilst you are contracted to an SRA one is something that doesn’t concern them. If such a lack of integrity is okay, then clearly anything goes?
Every week seems to bring a new low in the history of this organisation. How much further do we need to go?