- Legal Futures - https://www.legalfutures.co.uk -

Using client account as banking facility lands solicitors in trouble

Yacht: Solicitor made outstanding payments

The former co-head of a City law firm’s yacht department has been fined almost £25,000 by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) for using its client account as a banking facility.

Meanwhile a veteran law firm owner in Shrewsbury has been rebuked for a similar rule breach, this time collecting rent for two longstanding clients – £550 per month from one property and £450 from the other.

The SRA said that in 2021 Jay Allan Tooker, a former partner at Holman Fenwick Willan, acted for an existing client over the seizure of a yacht.

In a regulatory settlement agreement published yesterday, the SRA said Mr Tooker advised the client on how the yacht could be retrieved, as well as on outstanding sums of money due to the port authority and unrelated creditors.

An audit by the law firm identified 22 payments made between March 2021 and December 2021 totalling €150,410 and $262,427 – a total of over £324,000 – in respect of crew salaries, hardstanding, management fees, storage fees and insurance payments.

Mr Tooker, who retired in March this year, admitted authorising the payments, which were “not connected to the delivery of regulated legal services” and used the client account to provide “banking facilities” to the client in breach of the accounts rules.

The SRA said it took into account mitigation from Mr Tooker, in that he “co-operated fully” with the SRA’s investigation and had a hitherto clean regulatory history since his qualification in 1989.

He had shown “genuine insight”, expressed regret and the misconduct did not “cause actual harm or loss to the client or any third party”.

The SRA said a fine was appropriate because Mr Tooker’s conduct “showed a disregard for his regulatory obligations to exercise proper management over client account money”.

The misconduct was serious because “it took place over a number of months and given that a large number of transfers were made over a nine-month period it formed a pattern of conduct”.

The SRA said a fine based on 5% of gross annual income was appropriate and, based on the evidence produced by Mr Tooker, would result in a basic penalty of £33,150.

This was reduced by 25% to take into the account his early admissions, to £24,870. The solicitor was ordered to pay £1,350 in costs.

Paul Harfitt, owner and director of Paul F Harfitt & Co in Shrewsbury, was rebuked for a similar rule breach in using his client account as a banking facility.

The SRA said it began investigating him in May 2025 after it emerged he had been fined £8,400 by Shropshire Council [1] for carrying out property management activities without being a member of an approved client money protection scheme.

The First-tier Tribunal upheld the fine, with Judge Brian Kennedy KC rejecting the law firm’s argument that, as a regulated law firm, holding the money in its client account was sufficient protection.

In a regulatory settlement agreement with Mr Harfitt, the SRA said that, from October 2008 onwards, his law firm received into its client account rent of £550 per month in respect of one property and from September 2020 rent of £450 per month in respect of another.

The SRA said: “There is no evidence of client loss or misapplication of funds, and a proportion of the funds were related to tenancy-related legal work. The activity was limited to two longstanding clients and has since ceased.”

Mr Harfitt admitted using the firm’s client account as a banking facility and failing to uphold public trust in the profession.

The regulator said it had taken into account his mitigation, in that he co-operated with the investigation and made early admissions. There was no evidence of dishonesty, client loss or personal gain, and he regularly accounted to the clients.

Mr Harfitt stopped using the client account for rent collection and property management activities following the hearing.

However, a rebuke was appropriate because the solicitor had “direct responsibility” for the misconduct, “particularly in his role as a sole practitioner, COLP and COFA”.

Mr Harfitt was ordered to pay costs of £300.