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)
Look at the deal | 7-Jun-2011 7:18 am
The successor firms agreed to pay down the Halliwells partners lost capital. The deal was approved by the court and presumably the SRA.
The deal was based upon the amount of converted wip and the collection of unpaid invoices.
The temptation to apply money received in a manner which would maximise the reduction of lost capital is there for all to see.
If the ex Halliwells partners have redirected monies paid by clients in anticipation of such monies being used to pay counsel etc then it is likely that such conduct will have taken place both before and after the successor firms purchased the Halliwells assets.
We do not of course know whether all of the successor firms are affected by this. We do not know whether they were even aware of what may have been going on.
The SRA seems to be suggesting that there is a level of culpability but until we hear what the successor firms have to say we do not know whether there is any justification for pursuing them.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment