Law firm rebuked for failing to comply with undertaking


Conveyancing: Firm forgot to discharge mortgage

A law firm that failed to comply with an undertaking it gave in a conveyancing transaction within a reasonable time has been rebuked by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA).

Allsop Durn in Ruislip, North-West London, waited 14 months until the transaction had completed to discharge the mortgage on the property, according to a notice published by the regulator.

“The firm made enquiries with the relevant authority prior to completion but overlooked the need to follow up, and therefore the requisite paperwork and transfer of funds to discharge the mortgage was not completed.

“It was only when the buyers’ solicitors brought the issue to its attention in January 2022 [the undertaking was given in June 2021] that the firm realised there was an issue, and it was another four months before substantive action was taken to remedy the default.”

The buyers’ legal title was only properly registered in September 2022.

Allsop Dunn conceded that “had appropriate processes and procedures been in place, the issue could have been identified and rectified earlier”.

The SRA said the firm accepted full responsibility and admitted the allegation from the outset, co-operated fully with its investigation, and there was no lasting significant harm to clients.

“The risk of repetition is low. The firm has taken steps to improve its processes and procedures in relation to undertakings and residual client account balances… The firm’s conduct was not considered to be as a consequence of wilful or reckless disregard of risk or regulatory obligations.”

The SRA said a lesser sanction was not appropriate “given the seriousness of the firm’s misconduct… some public sanction is required to uphold public confidence in the delivery of legal services”.

Allsop Dunn was also ordered to pay costs of £1,350.




Blog


The AI governance gap in law firms and why it matters now

A third of law firms are already using AI tools with no formal policy in place to govern how AI gets used, what data goes into it, or who’s accountable when something goes wrong.


Information isn’t oversight – lessons from the PM Law review

The PM Law review’s real findings perhaps point to a failure mode applying to any organisation sitting on scattered risk information.


AI can do the work but it cannot inherit the lawyer’s duty

What happens when lawyers delegate cognitive work to AI but remain personally responsible for judgements they may no longer have independently reasoned through?


Loading animation