Solicitors Regulation Authority v Edward James Williams
[2023] EWHC 2151 (Admin)
Solicitors Regulation Authority Limited v George Fahim Sa’id
25 June 2024
[2024] EWHC 1619 (Admin)
High Court
A solicitor was accused of not doing enough to check if clients were involved in money laundering. A special court said the solicitor wasn't guilty because the rules allow for some judgment. A separate issue of keeping client names secret was partly resolved, protecting some confidential information.
Key Facts
- •The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) appealed a Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (Tribunal) decision dismissing four allegations of professional misconduct against a solicitor (Respondent) for inadequate money laundering risk management in two property transactions.
- •The transactions involved a wealthy Iraqi family, including a former Iraqi government minister (a Politically Exposed Person or PEP).
- •The SRA alleged breaches of the Money Laundering Regulations 2017, SRA Principles 2011, and the SRA Code of Conduct 2011.
- •The Tribunal dismissed the allegations, finding the Respondent's failings, while present, did not amount to professional misconduct.
- •The SRA appealed on grounds of misdirection, insufficient findings, and inadequate reasoning.
- •A separate appeal concerned the Tribunal's refusal to anonymise individuals and entities involved.
Legal Principles
Threshold for professional misconduct
Beckwith v SRA [2020] EWHC 3231 (Admin)
Adequacy of reasons in tribunal decisions
English v Emery Reimbold & Strick Ltd [2002] 1 WLR 2409
Doctrine of Precedent
SRA v Williams [2023] EWHC 2151 (Admin); Broome v Cassell & Co Ltd [1972] AC 1027; Willers v Joyce (No 2) [2018] AC 843
Legal Professional Privilege
R v Derby Magistrates Court ex p B [1996] AC 487; Balabel and another v Air India [1988] Ch 317; SRA v Williams [2023] EWHC 2151 (Admin)
Open Justice vs Anonymity
AB/X v MOJ [2023] EWHC 1920 (KB); Article 10/8 ECHR
Money Laundering Regulations 2017
Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017 (2017/692)
SRA Principles 2011 and Code of Conduct 2011
SRA Handbook
Outcomes
SRA's appeal on professional misconduct dismissed.
The Tribunal's decision, while acknowledging failings, found the Respondent's actions did not constitute professional misconduct, given the risk-based approach of the Money Laundering Regulations and the scope for professional judgment. The Tribunal considered the Respondent's long-standing relationship with the client and their established history.
SRA's appeal on anonymity partially allowed.
The Tribunal erred in failing to sufficiently protect legally privileged communications. While open justice is important, the court balanced this with the need to protect privilege, ordering anonymisation of certain individuals and entities but not to the extent initially sought by the SRA. The country of origin (Iraq) did not require anonymization.
Similar Cases
Naim Lone v Solicitors Regulation Authority Ltd
[2023] EWHC 349 (Admin)
Raj Rajan Mariaddan v Solicitors Regulation
[2023] EWHC 207 (Admin)
Javad Marandi, R (on the application of) v Westminster Magistrates’ Court
[2023] EWHC 587 (Admin)
Sheikh Asif Salam v Solicitors Regulation Authority Ltd
[2024] EWHC 547 (Admin)