BSB to amend Standard of Proof for misconduct

Watchdog to lower standard of proof in barrister misconduct hearings
Prosecutors of barristers accused of breaching professional rules will no longer have to meet the criminal standard of proof, the watchdog for the profession has announced.

The Bar Standards Board said that it would amend the standard of proof applied when barristers face disciplinary proceedings for professional misconduct.

It had held a public consultation on the proposal, which still needs to be approved by the Legal Services Board, the overarching regulator of all lawyers in England and Wales.

If the proposal is approved, the standard of proof will change from the criminal definition, beyond reasonable doubt, to the civil standard of on the balance of probabilities.

Board officials said that the move “will bring the Bar’s disciplinary arrangements in line with most other professions”.

It will also provide a boost to the Solicitors Regulation Authority, the watchdog with direct responsibility for the largest branch of the legal profession. The authority has for some time been battling with the Law Society, the body that represents 130,000 solicitors in England and Wales, over its aim to make the same change.

The Law Society has argued that because solicitor disciplinary tribunals can strike off lawyers and effectively bring an end to their careers, the highest standard of proof should remain in place.

The Bar Standards Board said that the revised approach would require “a period of preparation” at the Bar Tribunals and Adjudication Service. Therefore, it anticipated that the reform would not come into effect until the end of March 2019. “The revised standard will complement other changes that we have made recently to improve our rules and processes,” Sara Jagger, a BSB director, said.

Lawyers face prosecution over financial sanctions compliance

Passmore: Risks exist for every single solicitor and law firm

Lawyers are among those who could face prosecution if they fail to report information that could undermine UK financial sanctions, after a change to the law [1] that came into force this week.

“Independent legal professionals”, along with trust or company service providers, accountants and others are now captured by the European Union Financial Sanctions Regulations 2017.

The existing regulations already placed an obligation on businesses to report to the Treasury if they were acting for anyone subject to financial sanctions, but until Tuesday enforcement action could only be taken against financial services firms.

Those caught by the new regulations will commit an offence if they fail to inform HM Treasury if they know or have reasonable cause to suspect that a person has committed an offence under the relevant regulations – such as dealing with funds that must be frozen or activities that circumvent an asset freeze – or is a person who is the subject of an asset freeze.

There are sanctions placed on people and entities from 25 countries around the world – from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe – plus ISIS and al-Qaeda.

Crispin Passmore, the SRA executive director for policy, said: “The new financial sanctions regulations mean legal firms are obliged to comply with the reporting regime. These regulations, and the approaching Financial Action Task Force inspection, are further reminders of the importance the UK and global community places on tackling terrorist financing.

“Risks exist for every single solicitor and law firm whether conveyancing on the high street or handling global transactions, and each should be thinking about their responsibilities for tackling these issues.”

Guidance [2] from the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI) said lawyers are not required to provide information that is subject to legal professional privilege.

But it continued: “OFSI expects legal professionals to approach their disclosure obligations with rigour and carefully consider where legal professional privilege applies, and to what information.

“OFSI will challenge any blanket claims of privilege where we are not satisfied that such careful consideration has been made.”

Online consent tick boxes to be banned

Online consent scam outlawed in fight over personal data
Automatically ticked consent boxes that allow companies to harvest and exploit valuable personal information are to be banned in an overhaul of consumer protection laws for internet users.

DNA profiles and browsing histories are also to be included in a new definition of personal data, with companies facing criminal prosecution if they fail to protect users’ identities, report Francis Elliott and Mark Bridge.

Ministers will today spell out the details of a Data Protection Bill to be introduced in the Commons next month. It will include the right of adults to request the deletion of social media content they posted as children.

While that measure was expected, ministers will say that they intend also to expand the definition of personal data to include IP addresses and cookies. Matthew Hancock, digital policy minister, said that the bill would contain the most robust, yet dynamic, data laws in the world. “It will give people more control over their data, require more consent for its use and prepare Britain for Brexit,” he added.

Experts said that it could have far-reaching effects on companies that trade in anonymised data harvested online. Some offer cheap genetic tests for genealogy and then sell the information to medical researchers.

SRA to remove insurance obstacle to switching regulators

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) is to change its indemnity insurance rules to make it easier for law firms to switch regulator, it announced yesterday.

In a bid to encourage competition, the SRA will ditch the requirement that firms switching to another approved regulator have to buy run-off cover.

Under the change, the new regulator will be solely responsible for making sure there is adequate indemnity insurance available for future claims, including claims for work carried out or started before the switch.

This would provide a “clean break between regulatory regimes”, as well as clarity for consumers, and remove the potential for overlapping cover.

The SRA said it was working with the other regulators to agree a protocol and put in place a framework to share information when firms want to switch, so as to maintain client protection.

The change is subject to approval by the Legal Services Board (LSB), but the SRA hopes to have it in place for the coming indemnity year.

In the original SRA consultation a year ago, the regulator put forward formalising a waiver policy from the minimum terms and conditions of insurance for firms wanting to switch, but it has concluded that “a better approach” was to amend the terms so that run-off cover is not automatically triggered when a firm switches.

SRA policy director Crispin Passmore said: “The current approach makes it difficult for firms to be able to switch to the regulator they feel is right for their business. This change would give firms that choice, encouraging a modern, competitive market that provides affordable and accessible services for the public and businesses.

“We recognise that although such a change could have benefits for consumers, there are potential risks around protections for clients. We are therefore working closely with the other legal regulators on a switching protocol.”

The change was in part prompted by the fact that some law firms wanted to switch to the Council for Licensed Conveyancers (CLC).

In a statement, it said: “The CLC is pleased that the SRA has decided to remove a barrier that has prevented lawyers from exercising their right to choose the most appropriate regulator for their business…

“We are already working with a number of firms who have been waiting for this announcement from the SRA. Any other firm considering moving into the CLC’s regime for specialist conveyancing and probate lawyers should contact us as soon as they begin to think about the possibility.”

The change also reflects an underlying feature of the Legal Services Act 2007 that promotes competition between regulators.

In the consultation, the SRA said: “We are conscious of the risk that competition between regulators may indirectly lead to outcomes that are not in the public or consumer interest.

“That might happen, for example, if regulators were to reduce consumer protection or avoid disciplinary or enforcement action below an optimal level, simply to attract and retain a larger number of firms.

“However, the LSB approves each regulator’s regulatory arrangements. Thus we can be confident that each regulator’s arrangements, including their arrangements for professional indemnity insurance, are appropriate.”

SRA looks at the public’s experience of conveyancing

SRA looks at the public’s experience of conveyancing

We will be researching the experiences of people who have used conveyancing services offered by solicitors.

Around 1,000 former conveyancing clients will be asked their views on the legal aspect of their house purchase or sale. We will use this information to help shape the way it regulates. Independent researchers, IFF Research, will ask the public for their experiences of the conveyancing legal process, looking at access, choice, quality and cost. The study will draw out good and poor practice, and any specific areas of concern that we might need to address.

The project will also look at a number of specific issues, including how people think technology is speeding up and simplifying the process and their experience of any risks, such as cybercrime.

Crispin Passmore, SRA Executive Director, Policy, said: “The research will play an important role in increasing our understanding of the conveyancing market. We want to know how it is changing, and how changes elsewhere – such as fixed fees and technology – will affect the experiences of solicitors and those who use their services.”

We conducted research on solicitor experiences of conveyancing in 2013. Further information can be found here:

Go to the 2013 research

We paid out £10 million to the public last year (November 2015 to October 2016) from its Compensation Fund. More than £1million of this related to conveyancing matters, paying grants to replace stolen funds that were intended for house deposits.

The latest research project aims to report back in the autumn.

 New AML EU 4th Money Laundering Directive now in force

 

The Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds Regulations 2017 implement the EU 4th Money Laundering Directive. The final version includes changes from a draft published earlier in the year.

Amy Bell, who runs Amy Bell Compliance and chairs the Law Society’s money laundering task force, said the new regulations repeal and replace the 2007 version and are 118 pages long.

“Whilst much of the 2007 regulations remain intact, there are some considerable amendments and additions which will take firms some time to consider and implement,” she said.

In a statement on Friday, the Treasury said the regulations would “improve the quality” of checks done on the source of money.

“They ensure that businesses can spot suspicious activity and report it, enabling the police to act swiftly and decisively to prevent corruption or terrorist attacks.”

Legal bodies have not yet published guidance on the new regulations, in light of the government’s decision that in future there can only be only one Treasury-approved piece of AML guidance per sector.

This means the sign-off process now requires the agreement of 11 legal sector regulatory and representative bodies across the UK.

The SRA said: “We expect law firms to comply with their legal obligations and are urging law firms to familiarise themselves with the new regulations as soon as possible, and take action to comply.”

In a statement, the Law Society said: “While we had hoped to have had the guidance approved and published ahead of the commencement of the new regulations, this has unfortunately not been possible…

“We recognise that many of the changes required under the new regulations will mean significant changes to firms’ systems and controls.”

It said the Legal Sector Affinity Group – a group representing the legal sector AML supervisory bodies to government, including the Law Society and SRA – has told the Treasury that “a sensible supervisory approach towards the new regulations would be to give firms and individuals a period of time to adjust to their new obligations.

“The group feels this is particularly important given the extremely short timeframe between when supervisors and those they supervise will see the final version of the MLRs and when those MLRs come into force.”

Ms Bell said a central theme of the regulations was firms needed to take a risk-based approach, meaning they need to complete a risk assessment of their practices and review their AML policies.

There were a number of practical changes firms were likely to need to make to their customer due diligence process, she said, such as expanding the list of information obtained on a corporate client to include information about its constitution, possible from review of the articles of association.

“This could add considerable time to the process,” Ms Bell said.

Another issue was a wider definition of beneficial owners, while the definition of a politically exposed person (PEP) now included domestic PEPs, and the definition has changed to include the governing bodies of political parties, and the boards of international organisations.

SRA highlights publication of Treasury money laundering regulations

SRA highlights publication of Treasury money laundering regulations

We are working on new guidance for law firms, which we aim to publish shortly, following the announcement of new money laundering regulations by the Treasury.

The Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds Regulations 2017 have been published here:

Go to the regulations

We are reviewing the full detail of the requirements. We will then work with other regulators across the UK to provide updated guidance for law firms. Solicitors can also contact our Ethics Guidance helpline if they have queries.

Robust anti-money-laundering arrangements are important and a priority for the sector, law firms and the global economy. We expect law firms to comply with their legal obligations and are urging law firms to familiarise themselves with the new regulations as soon as possible, and take action to comply.

However, we recognise the short lead-in time businesses have been given to implement the new requirements. We will take a proportionate and pragmatic approach as firms take steps to comply with the new requirements.

Money laundering is a priority risk for us. Further information is available here:

Go to the AML page

PIE and PSG to merge

Property Information Exchange Ltd (PIE), creator of the market-leading brands poweredbypie and Brighter Law, has merged with PSG Connect Ltd (PSG) to create the number one provider of legal services for the residential conveyancing industry.

David Brown, CEO of PIE commented on the merger, “PSG are a great fit for our business; they share our ethos, passion and dedication to empower law firms and help them grow within the marketplace.  We have always looked at PSG as the market leader in terms of quality search delivery, customer support, local knowledge and presence.  We are really looking forward to the many opportunities and benefits this merger will bring to all of our clients.  It’s very exciting.”

Richard Dawson, PSG Managing Director added, “It was incredibly important to find the best fit for PSG, a company that shares our ethos and one that would support our future plans.  In David and the team at PIE we have found a like-minded partner with which to grow. PIE is a market leading provider of technology solutions for the conveyancing sector. The collaboration of the two businesses will result in a significant benefit to all our clients in terms of customer service, delivery and innovative technology”.

The combined companies will build on their shared values of customer support and excellent products to provide an unrivalled service to their clients. Bringing together the best people, the latest technology and over 30 years of experience in the industry, the merged businesses look set to lead the way in the legal services marketplace.

Draft SRA Accounts Rules 2018 Published

Draft SRA Accounts Rules 2018 Published

The draft SRA Accounts Rules 2018 were published by the SRA on Wednesday 14 June 2017 and have been reduced to just seven pages containing twelve rules.

As expected, the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has, as a result of feedback received during their consultation on proposed changes to the SRA Accounts Rules, backed down on their controversial plan to change the definition of client money.

Whilst the majority of the consultation responses received by the SRA were supportive of the aim of simplifying the SRA Accounts Rules, there was widespread criticism of their proposal to amend the definition of client money so as to exclude payments on account of costs and certain disbursements as having to be treated as client money, as it is under the SRA Accounts Rules 2011 which are currently in force.

The revised definition of client money now includes money held or received by a firm in respect of fees and any unpaid disbursements if held or received prior to the delivery of a bill for the same. In our view, the whole issue of the treatment of a firm‘s fees and the billing process is likely to require further consideration by the SRA. Rule 4 of the draft SRA Accounts Rules 2018, states that, “where you are holding client money and some or all of that money will be used to pay your costs, you must give a bill of costs, or other written notification, to the client or the paying party and this must be done before you transfer any client money from a client”. Significantly, the phrase ’properly require‘ which features in the equivalent provision in the current SRA Accounts Rules is no longer in use. It is the presence of the words ’properly require‘ that prevents a firm from transferring funds from client to office bank account where a bill has been sent to the client but the work covered by the bill has not yet been completed. This important point is not covered under the draft SRA Accounts Rules 2018 which, at face value, seem to permit monies to be transferred from client to office bank account if a bill has been given to the client for ’work to be undertaken’, i.e. a payment on account of costs.

Another significant change, perhaps inadvertent on the part of the SRA, is that the obligation to send or give a bill to the client prior to transferring costs from client to office account now applies to the firm‘s ’costs‘ rather than the firm’s ‘fees’. Critically, the definition of ‘costs’ comprises the firm‘s profit costs and disbursements whereas the definition of ’fees’, which is used in the equivalent provision within the current SRA Accounts Rules, is purely the profit cost element of the bill. Therefore, it would appear, that under the draft SRA Accounts Rules 2018, a firm will not be able to transfer funds held in client bank account, to cover disbursements paid out of office monies on behalf of the client, prior to giving a bill to the client.

The rules relating to the handling of monies from the Legal Aid Agency have changed significantly as well. Under the draft SRA Accounts Rules 2018, monies received from the Legal Aid Agency can, as is currently the case, be paid into the firm‘s office account. However, the obligation to either pay any unpaid disbursements, or transfer the corresponding funds from office to client account, has been removed. The SRA consider that removing the provision for disbursements to be held in a client account if they are not paid within either 14 days (payments received where a funding certificate is in force) or 28 days (payments received under a civil or criminal contract) does not mean that firms will be able to hold payments from the Legal Aid Agency in their business account indefinitely. If, for example, a firm does not pay an expert’s fee and thereby delays a client‘s matter, this would constitute a breach of the SRA’s rule to make payments promptly and is also likely to be a breach of the SRA Code of Conduct.

It is important to realise that we have only seen part of the story so far. Whilst the SRA have simplified and shortened the SRA Accounts Rules, they have indicated their intention to publish additional guidance on the correct interpretation and application of the proposed new SRA Accounts Rules to be read in conjunction with the new rules. So, whilst we have a streamlined version of the SRA Accounts Rules, it is evident from the list of the areas where the SRA intend to issue further guidance, that we will be gaining a substantial amount of new material which will, inevitably, end up being treated as if they were rules rather than simply guidance! The SRA have identified the following areas where additional guidance will, most likely, be issued:

  • Acting as a trustee and client money
  • What is client money
  • Name of client account
  • Withdrawals to make payments to Charity
  • Who can make withdrawals from client account?
  • Residual balances due to a client
  • Requirements to pay interest
  • Accounting records and systems
  • Accountant’s Reports
  • Record keeping around operation of joint accounts
  • Operation of a client’s own account
  • Treatment of legal aid money/monies received relating to formal appointments (insolvency)
  • Use of Third Party Managed Accounts
  • Client account as a banking facility
  • Waiver provisions
  • Out of scope monies in an MDP

The SRA have stated that the draft SRA Accounts Rules 2018 will not come into effect before the Autumn of 2018. Before then, there will be a further consultation process with the scope for additional amendments to be made before the final version of the SRA Accounts Rules 2018 are presented to the SRA Board for approval.

Download the draft SRA Accounts Rules 2018 below:

Draft_sra_accounts_rules_2018