Geraint James
Solicitor
119103

Decision - Sanction

Outcome: Rebuke

Outcome date: 19 February 2026

Published date: 26 February 2026

Firm details

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

Name: Beaufort Montague Harris Ltd

Address(es): 4 Queen Street, Bath, BA1 1HE

Firm ID: 663334

Outcome details

This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

Decision details

1. Agreed outcome

1.1 Geraint James ('Mr James'), a solicitor and director of Beaufort Montague Harris Limited (the Firm), agrees to the following outcome to the investigation of his conduct by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA):

1. he is rebuked
2. to the publication of this agreement
3. he will pay the costs of the investigation of £300.

2. Summary of Facts

2.1 A copy of the Firm's accountants report for the period of 1 January to 31 December 2023 identified a balance of £71,394.65 of client money that had been dormant for up to 16 years. The balance related to a Trust (the Trust) where the original trustees passed away.

2.2 Mr James took over the Firm in 2007. The original trustees were still in place at this time, but no action was taken to deal with the Trust.

2.3 One of the trustees (Trustee one) passed away in November 2009 at which point Mr James and his associate at the time, handled the estate and collected in assets relating to the Trust. There was no action taken in relation to distribution or to appoint a replacement trustee and the funds lay dormant until it came to the attention of the SRA.

2.4 This was the case even after the second trustee (Trustee two) passed away in 2023.

2.5 Since being contacted by the SRA about the balance, Mr James has taken steps to be appointed as a trustee and has liaised with the beneficiaries to distribute the funds.

3. Admissions

3.1 Mr James makes the following admissions which the SRA accepts:

1. He failed to account to beneficiaries of the Trust for a period of up to 16 years and has therefore retained client money for longer than necessary.
2. That this conduct is in breach of the following professional standards:
   • Rule 15(3) of the Solicitors Accounts Rules 1998 (until 6 October 2011)
   • Rule 1.04 of the Code of Conduct 2007 (amended on 1 July 2009)
   • Rule 14.3 of the SRA Account Rules 2011 (until 24 November 2019)
   • Principle 4 of the SRA Principles 2011 (until 24 November 2019)
   • Rule 2.5 of the SRA Accounts Rules (from 25 November 2019)
   • Principle 7 of the SRA Principles 2019.

4. Why a written 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 James and the following mitigation which he has put forward:

1. Some of the delay in distributing the funds were due to a breakdown in communication with Trustee two.
2. Prompt action was taken once the issue came to light and all appropriate interest was accounted for and distributed, along with the funds.
3. There has been no detriment caused to the beneficiaries, and they have not indicated any discontent with the handling of the Trust.
4. Mr James has no adverse regulatory history.
5. The conduct was isolated to this one matter.
6. Mr James has cooperated with the SRA promptly and thoroughly.
7. There is no evidence to suggest dishonesty or misuse of client money.

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

1. As the conduct involves client money, and a significant amount at that, it requires a sanction to be applied in order to uphold public confidence in the delivery of legal services.
2. Mr James, an experienced solicitor, was directly responsible for his conduct, being aware of the obligation to return client funds in a timely manner.
3. Whilst the beneficiaries have not indicated any discontent, there has still been a significant delay in them receiving the funds.

5. Publication

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

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

6.1 Mr James agrees that he will not deny the admissions made in this agreement or act in any way which is inconsistent with it.

6.2 If Mr James denies the admissions or acts in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement, the conduct which is subject to this agreement may be considered further by the SRA. That may result in a disciplinary outcome or a referral to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal on the original facts and allegations.

6.3 Denying the admissions made or acting in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement may also constitute a separate breach of principles 2 and 5 of the Principles and paragraph 7.3 of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs.

7. Costs

7.1 Mr James agrees to pay the costs of the SRA's investigation in the sum of £300. Such costs are due within 28 days of a statement of costs due being issued by the SRA.