Partners give SRA undertakings over clearing residual balances


Payments: Firm pledges to return client money 

A law firm that continued to allow residual balances to accrue on dozens of files for nearly a decade, even after being warned by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), has been rebuked.

Further, the senior partners of Cumbrian practice Brockbank Curwen Cain & Hall have to provide undertakings that the firm will take “all reasonable steps” to return the remaining residual balances within the next year, and keep records of the efforts to do so.

A notice published by the SRA last week recorded how the firm submitted a qualified accountant’s report in 2020 that highlighted hundreds of residual balances.

This triggered an SRA inspection that showed £232,065 held on 188 matters, with the largest balance topping £50,000 and the oldest dating back to 2016.

Brockbank Curwen provided assurances that it would hold monthly compliance meetings until the balances were cleared.

An accounts rule spot check questionnaire at the start of 2025 led to another inspection, at which point the firm held residual balances of £48,317.40 on 81 matters, three of which still dated back to 2016. The firm admitted failing to return client money promptly.

In mitigation, it said there was now a three-step process to review balances, escalating any lack of attention through the steps to the senior management team, “which should prompt the necessary engagement with fee-earners to address any persistent balances”.

The SRA said a rebuke was the appropriate outcome because of Brockbank Curwen’s failure to adequately address the issue for nearly 10 years, despite being drawn to its attention in 2020. This “demonstrates a pattern of failing to comply with its regulatory obligations”.

The residual balances have been kept securely, and no clients have reported to the SRA that the firm has failed to return their money.

It concluded: “There is a low risk of repetition due to the reduced levels of balances now held, and the steps taken to improve the process for reviewing balances, ensuring they are promptly returned to the client or third party for whom they are held.

“Some public sanction is required to uphold public confidence in the delivery of legal services.”

The firm is also to pay the SRA costs of £300.




Leave a Comment

By clicking Submit you consent to Legal Futures storing your personal data and confirm you have read our Privacy Policy and section 5 of our Terms & Conditions which deals with user-generated content. All comments will be moderated before posting.

Required fields are marked *
Email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Blog


Change in regulator shouldn’t make AML less of a priority

While SRA fines for AML have been climbing, many in the profession aren’t confident they will get any relief from the FCA, a body used to dealing with a highly regulated industry.


There are 17 million wills waiting to be written

The main reason cited by people who do not have a will was a lack of awareness as to how to arrange one. As a professional community, we seem to be failing to get our message across.


The case for a single legal services regulator: why the current system is failing

From catastrophic firm collapses to endemic compliance failures, the evidence is mounting that the current multi-regulator model is fundamentally broken.


Loading animation