Timothy David Lewis Eppel
Solicitor
107087

Decision - Agreement

Outcome: Regulatory settlement agreement

Outcome date: 17 October 2025

Published date: 19 February 2026

Firm details

Firm or organisation at date of publication and at time of matters giving rise to outcome

Name: McFaddens LLP

Address(es): 80 Coleman Street, London EC2R 5BJ

Firm ID: 446470

Outcome details

This outcome was reached by agreement.

Decision details

1. Agreed Outcome

1.1. Timothy David Lewis Eppel (107087) (the Respondent) of 80 Coleman Street, London EC2R 5BJ agrees to the following outcomes of the investigation of his conduct by the Solicitors Regulation Authority Limited ('SRA') under reference number RGC-000121765

1.1.1 A rebuke.

1.1.2 The publication of this Agreement.

2. Summary of Facts

Use of client account as a banking facility

2.1 The Respondent was admitted as a solicitor on 1 July 1975. At material times the Respondent was the owner and Senior Partner of McFaddens LLP ('the Firm').

Client A

2.2 The Respondent was initially instructed by Client A in August 2017 to advise her in respect of a loan facility agreement in which Client A was the lender and Person B was the borrower. Funds belonging to Client A of £47,480.00 were received into the Firm's client account on 19 December 2018. On the same date, funds of £4,020.00 were also received from a company owned by Mr Eppel into the Firm's client account against Client A's ledger.

2.3 The sum of £51,500 was then paid from the Firm's client account (from Client A's ledger) to an unrelated company in respect of a personal matter relating to Mr Eppel. Mr Eppel has stated that all of the funds then within Client A's ledger of the Firm's client account were monies owed to his Firm in fees. However, the single payment made from Client A's ledger of the Firm's client account was not connected to the legal transaction in respect of which Mr Eppel was instructed.

2.4 In summary, Mr Eppel placed £4,020.00 from of his own money into the Firm's client account which was combined with £47,480.00 monies received in respect of the Firm's fees for Client A's matter. A payment of £51,500 was then made from the client account in respect of a personal matter relating to Mr Eppel.

2.5 It is accepted that, the client account should not have been used for this purpose. The correct approach would have been for the Firm's fees to have been transferred into the Firm's office account and any monies owed to Mr Eppel to have been paid to him from the office account. Mr Eppel's own money should not have placed into the client account for expediency.

3. Admissions

3.1. The Respondent makes, and the SRA accepts, the following admissions:

3.1.1. On or around 19 December 2018, he caused or allowed monies to be paid into and from the Firm's client account, in circumstances other than in respect of an underlying legal transaction being undertaken by the Firm or in respect of the delivery by the Firm of normal regulated services.

3.1.2. That his conduct therefore breached Rule 14.5 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011 (the prohibition on the use of the client account as a banking facility).

4. Why a rebuke is an appropriate outcome

4.1. The SRA's Enforcement Strategy sets out its approach to the use of its enforcement powers where there has been a failure to meet its standards or requirements.

4.2. When considering the appropriate sanctions and controls in this matter, the SRA has taken into account the admissions made by Mr Eppel, and the following mitigation:

4.2.1. he has cooperated fully with the SRA investigation;

4.3. The SRA considers that a rebuke is the appropriate outcome because:

4.3.1. There was a single transaction which took place in 2018 and the conduct has not been repeated;

4.3.2. Whilst the use of the client account to process Mr Eppel's own money was improper, there was no misuse of client money and there has been no harm to clients or third parties.

4.4. A rebuke is appropriate to maintain professional standards and uphold public confidence in the solicitors' profession and in legal services provided by authorised persons.

4.5. A rebuke therefore meets the requirements of rule 3.1 of the Regulatory and Disciplinary Procedure Rules.

5. Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement

5.1. If the Respondent denies the admissions or acts in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement, for example, denying the misconduct admitted above, that may result in a disciplinary outcome.

5.2. Denying the admissions made or acting in a way that is inconsistent with this Agreement may also constitute a separate breach of principles 1, 2 and 5 of the Principles contained within the SRA Standards and Regulations 2019 and paragraph 7.3 of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs.

5.3. By entering into this Agreement, the SRA confirms that this matter is concluded.

6. Publication

6.1. The SRA considers it appropriate that this agreement is published in the interests of transparency in the regulatory and disciplinary process. The Respondent agrees to the publication of this agreement.

The date of this Agreement is 17 October 2025