A Southampton law firm fined £20,700 for transparency breaches.
- David Ebert failed to publish required information on its website.
- Missing compliance officers were a part of multiple administrative oversights.
- Law firm acknowledged errors as non-deliberate but problematic.
- The firm made moves to correct issues post-investigation.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal has imposed a £20,700 fine on a Southampton-based law firm, David Ebert, for failing to adhere to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA)’s transparency rules. This fine followed a previous £1,300 penalty and further administrative costs of £600 levied by an SRA adjudicator in 2022. The firm’s continuous non-compliance, which included not displaying mandatory fee information and complaint procedures on its website, prompted this stringent measure.
David Ebert’s website did not meet SRA transparency standards, missing key details such as how clients could file complaints and various fee specifics. These omissions affected a broad spectrum of services, including conveyancing, probate, and immigration. The firm attributed these lapses to transformative phases it was undergoing, leading to a noticeable delay in addressing the deficiencies highlighted by the SRA.
A crucial issue identified was the absence of required compliance officers. The firm was without a Compliance Officer for Legal Practice (COLP) for over a year and a Compliance Officer for Finance and Administration (COFA) for nearly three years. These administrative gaps were viewed as significant breaches, exacerbating the firm’s accountability issues and contributing to the decision to refer the case to the tribunal.
In mitigating their position, David Ebert acknowledged these breaches but insisted they were a result of administrative oversights during a transformative phase, not deliberate attempts to bypass regulations. The firm expressed regret for not prioritising these compliance issues and noted that no intentional harm was intended.
Upon identification of these breaches, David Ebert initiated several corrective measures, including engaging a compliance firm to assist in rectifying issues, particularly concerning website compliance. Despite these efforts, the tribunal emphasised that such persistent non-compliance was unacceptable, regardless of the firm’s internal challenges.
David Ebert’s case underscores the pressing need for law firms to prioritise compliance amidst administrative changes.
