Halliwells’ client money fiasco haunts new owners
Related images
SRA warns BLG, Gateley and Hill Dickinson of £500k liability
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has sent a warning to the firms that acquired Halliwells, informing them that they could be liable for the client money shortfalls from the failed firm.
The watchdog has written to Barlow Lyde & Gilbert (BLG), Gateley and Hill Dickinson, warning them to fill the £500,000 black hole or face investigation.
The shortfall concerns client money disbursements due to be paid to barristers instructed by Halliwells. The firm’s accounts show a £305,000 shortfall in fees for barristers and £272,000 in interest.
The SRA letter, seen by The Lawyer, states that Halliwells could have been in breach of rules on how to handle client money for its own legal fees and client money for disbursements such as barrister fees. The two pools should be kept in separate accounts.
The letter was sent by the SRA’s law firm Bevan Brittan to CMS Cameron McKenna, which advises Halliwells’ administrators at BDO. The letter states: “The continued existence of such a shortfall does in the SRA’s view raise issues in the public interest as to whether the firm was properly managed and whether the trust the public places in the legal profession has been diminished.”
The regulator said it was unclear who was liable for the shortfall and urged that it was of “paramount importance” that the matter was resolved. It reminded the firms that there were “regulatory and disciplinary steps it can take in the public interest in relation to those whom it regulates”.
In a statement Gateley Manchester chief Rod Waldie said: “We’re extremely respectful of our obligations in respect of solicitors’ accounts rules. This whole matter is part of ongoing contractual discussions between the purchasers and the administrator.”
BLG and Hill Dickinson did not return calls for comment.
The news comes just weeks before Halliwells’ former landlords at St James’s Court in Manchester go to court over unpaid rent owed by partners.
A three-day summary judgment hearing has been set for 20 June, with four partners who were personal guarantors of the office - Ian Craig, Christopher Phillips, Paul Thomas and Matthew Wightman - named as defendants. Rent had been guaranteed on the premises until 2013, despite the firm vacating the offices in 2007.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page
Readers' comments (21)
Disgusted | 2-Jun-2011 9:29 pm
If the SRA had been dealing with a 4 man firm from Bradford then people would have been struck off by now. Double standards at work. The Halliwells partners ought to be the ones paying back the money rather than the successor firms. It was the Halliwells partners who allowed these things to go on whilst they were at Halliwells and before they moved on to the successor firms.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
In Austin we trust | 3-Jun-2011 7:58 am
Is Austin still chair of the Salford university audit committee? Lol
He doesn't appear to be head of litigation at Heatons anymore.
What is the SRA going to do with him. On his own admission he was there until the end, working his socks off. An admission which represents a characteristic own goal on his part.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 3-Jun-2011 10:22 am
In relation to the comment from "Disgusted", I could not agree more. As a sole practitioner, who used to work in a very large law firm, I have seen the SRA work from both angles. There can be no doubt that the SRA over-regulates small firms and under-regulates big firms. It is a disgrace. Goodness knows how the SRA will cope with the new "Outcomes-focused regulation" coming in in October 2011. If they already run scared of applying their own rule book to large firms, what are they going to do in an even more subjective world?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 3-Jun-2011 11:41 am
Pay up and we will forget all about it. Great message to the profession.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Interested Observer | 3-Jun-2011 12:53 pm
I read today on their website that the SDT is prosecuting someone for misleading the police by not telling them that he was an accredited police station representative. If the SDT has the resources to deal with cases such as this, how come it isn't turning over Halliwells?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 3-Jun-2011 12:59 pm
Where's Wally?
according to Heaton's website, Wally aka Austin...
"His commercial reputation lead to his appointment to the Business Leaders Advisory Committee to Manchester City Council for two years and currently he is a member of Salford University Corporate Governance Council and is Chairman of their Audit Committee"
what an alarming thought for Salford....
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Tool | 3-Jun-2011 3:55 pm
Austin is acting for Salford in suing some guy who runs a website called vagrant in the casual ward of a workhouse.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 4-Jun-2011 2:51 am
Yep - Austin is "acting" for Salford University in this ridiculous libel case. Austin - himself a property litigator - has instructed a Barrister well known for his expertese in... personal injury and negligence. Does it get better? Well he's still Chair of Audit at the University, which has recently announced it will be making 15% of all staff redundant AND taking out large commercial loans. As Chair of Audit, he also presumably signed off on a hugely expensive lease arrangement for the University's new premises at MediaCityUK (£40,000/week ex. Vat). This whilst the few at the top of the University reward themselves with ever greater riches, chauffeurs, grace-and-favour houses. Does it all sound strangely familiar?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
SLD | 4-Jun-2011 2:46 pm
If BLG didn't ringfence the client money shortfall then does that mean Clydes will now pick up the bill?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Tony Guise | 6-Jun-2011 10:31 am
Client account shortages remain the responsibility of the principals who were in place at the time so the successor firms are in the clear. SRA should go for the former principals, as they usually do.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment