Champagne moment

Print This Post

29 March 2010


 

Lovely bubbly: expensive champagne from sophisticated client is probably a gift

Q. I successfully completed a complex commercial matter for an established wealthy client involving significant sums of money.  By way of thanks, the client has just delivered to me a crate of champagne, which I estimate cost him in the region of £500.  Can I accept it?

 

A. You need to refer to rule 3.04 of the Solicitors Code of Conduct 2007, which applies not only in these circumstances, but also when a client proposes to leave a gift in his or her will to you, to anyone in your firm or to a member of their family.

The rule does not prevent you from accepting the gift, but it does require you to ensure that the client first takes independent advice if the gift is significant, or significant in relation to the client’s likely estate and the reasonable expectations of prospective beneficiaries.

There is no definition as to what constitutes a “significant amount” and this will therefore depend on the particular circumstances, but guidance note 58 to the rule does state that, in general, anything more than a token gift will be considered significant and could leave the recipient exposed to allegations of misconduct if the client was not separately advised.

In this case, bearing in mind the client is a sophisticated user of legal services with considerable assets, it seems reasonable to take the view that the gift is not significant.



Leave a comment

* Denotes required field

All comments will be moderated before posting. Please see our Terms and Conditions

Legal Futures Blog

Know your client checks – A lesson from BHS

Paul-Bennett for Legal Futures

As you will be aware, it is a legal requirement for advisory firms to carry out ‘know your client’ checks. The purpose of doing so is to confirm your client’s identity and to seek to provide protection in respect of anti-money laundering (AML) and terrorist financing laws. The BHS experience before the House of Commons’ work and pensions committee and business, innovation and skills committee shows that firms need to think beyond AML obligations.

September 29th, 2016