John
Wright
Solicitor
124196
Decision - Agreement
Outcome: Regulatory settlement agreement
Outcome date: 19 January 2026
Published date: 11 June 2026
Firm details
Firm or organisation at time of matters giving rise to outcome
Name: Ashley Wilson Solicitors
Address(es): Winchester Stables, 18 Winchester Walk, London Bridge, London SE1 9AG
Firm ID: 510618
Outcome details
This outcome was reached by agreement.
Reasons/basis
1. Agreed outcome
1.1. John Charles Wright of 22 Williams Lane, London SW14 7AZ agrees to the following outcomes of the investigation of his conduct by the Solicitors Regulation Authority Limited ('SRA') under reference number RGC-000008057
1.2 A financial penalty of £5,000
1.3 Payment of costs in the sum of £6,200
1.4 The publication of this Agreement.
2. Summary of Facts
2.1 Mr Wright was admitted as a solicitor on 1 April 1991. At the material time, Mr Wright was a Manager and Partner at Ashley Wilson Solicitors ('the Firm').
Own Interest conflict – Property A
2.2 Between 11 February 2019 and 17 February 2020, Mr Wright was instructed in the purchase of the leasehold of Property A in the sum of £1,075,000 and the subsequent freehold purchase of the same property. The client purchaser was Company A, which was wholly owned by Person A. Person's A husband, Person B, was the main contact with the Firm for this transaction. Mr Wright had acted on previous occasions for Person A and Company A.
2.3 On 22 March 2019, contracts were exchanged with an agreed completion date of 3 May 2029.
2.4 Between 19-25 April 2019, Mr Wright made enquiries about ground rent on Property A and was informed on 29 April 2019, that it was £33,000 per annum.
2.5 The purchase was to be partially funded by a bridging loan from Lender A. A decision in principle for a loan of £762,146 was made by Lender A on 30 April 2019. The decision was based on a property valuation of £1,075,000 and a peppercorn ground rent.
2.6 In May 2019, there were discussions between Mr Wright, Person B and another partner at the Firm about the implications of having not identified the correct ground rent and the possibility of a claim against the Firm.
2.7 Lender A obtained a second valuation report, dated 21 May 2019, providing a reduced valuation of the leasehold at £800,000. As contracts had exchanged, Company A was contractually bound to a purchase price of £1,075,000.
2.8 Lender A subsequently lent £520,000 towards the purchase of Property A, against the original decision in principle sum of £762,146, leaving a shortfall of £242,146.84.
2.9 On 21 May 2019, Person B reported that without the full bridging loan, he would not be able to complete the purchase.
2.10 The purchase of the leasehold of Property A completed on 20 June 2019.
2.11 The Firm's client account included the following payments received on the Property A transaction:
| Date | Payee | Amount | Purpose |
|---|---|---|---|
| 13-Jun-19 | Person C (a relative of Mr Wright) | £200,000 | Purchase of leasehold |
| 14-Jun-19 | Respondent | £50,000 | Purchase of leasehold |
| 22-Jun-19 | Respondent | £25,000 | Purchase of leasehold |
| 02-Aug-19 | Respondent | £25,000 | Stamp duty |
| 05-Aug-19 | Respondent | £36,356.50 | Stamp duty |
| 04-Nov-19 | Respondent | £8,500 | Freeholder costs |
2.12 On 4 September 2019, Mr Wright transferred £550,000 from his personal account to Company A. Company A used these funds to discharge the bridging loan made by Lender A.
2.13 Mr Wright did not advise his client of the conflict of interest that existed, advise his client to obtain independent legal advice or satisfy himself that it was appropriate to act in circumstances where he had invested in the transaction.
2.14 Mr Wright worked on the purchase of the freehold title of Property A until he left the Firm on 17 February 2020.
2.15 Between 23 June and 8 July 2020, Company A made the following payments to Mr Wright:
| Date | Amount |
|---|---|
| 23-Jun-20 | £250,000 |
| 03-Jul-20 | £250,000 |
| 07-Jul-20 | £250,000 |
| 08-Jul-20 | £155,332.09 |
2.16 On 29 March 2021, Mr Wright emailed the Firm to advise that he had put funds into the Property A transaction to mitigate the loss to the client and protect the Firm.
2.17 In summary, Mr Wright had invested a total of £894,856.50 of his own money into the leasehold purchase (£550,000 paid directly to Company A and £344,856.50 via client account deposits from Mr Wright and one of his family members). Mr Wright had received payments of £905,332.09 from Company A in return. There was a potential profit of £10,475.59.
2.18 By making this investment in the Property A transaction, a conflict of interests arose as Mr Wright may have obtained a legal interest in Property A. Further, Mr Wright's investments were made in the context of a potential negligence claim against him and/or the Firm.
2.19 In 2023, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal had approved an Agreed Outcome whereby Mr Wright accepted a financial penalty for acting for both purchaser and vendor in a conveyancing transaction, which gave rise to an own interest conflict and breach of the Accounts Rules.
3. Admissions
3.1. Mr Wright makes, and the SRA accepts, the following admissions:
3.2. While acting in the transaction relating to Property A, Mr Wright contributed £894,856 of his and/or a family member's own money, and as such there was an own interest conflict.
3.3. That he thereby breached Principle 6 of the SRA Principles 2011 and Principle 2 of the SRA Principles 2019, failed to achieve Outcome 3.4 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011 and breached Paragraph 6.1 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs 2019.
4. Why a financial penalty 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 Wright, and the following mitigation:
4.2.1. he has cooperated with the SRA investigation;
4.3. The SRA considers that a financial penalty is the appropriate outcome because:
4.3.1. Mr Wright was directly responsible for his conduct;
4.3.2. The conduct was planned and repeated on several occasions over a period of 5 months;
4.3.3. The conduct was motivated by an attempt to avoid a claim for negligence being made against him and/or the Firm, at which he was a Partner;
4.3.4. Mr Wright failed to act in the best interests of his client;
4.3.5. The conduct had potential to cause significant harm to the client;
4.3.6. There was potential for Mr Wright to financially benefit from the conduct; and
4.3.7. Mr Wright had previously been sanctioned for similar conduct.
4.4. A financial penalty is appropriate to maintain professional standards and uphold public confidence in the solicitors' profession and in legal services provided by authorised persons. Mr Wright's conduct meant he failed to adhere to the regulatory requirement to provide a professional standard of service to his client. He placed his client's interests at risk by acting where a conflict of interest existed.
4.5. A financial penalty therefore meets the requirements of rule 3.1 of the Regulatory and Disciplinary Procedure Rules.
5. Amount of fine
5.1 Mr Wright proposed a financial penalty of £5,000.
5.2 The SRA had regard to its published guidance on its approach to setting an appropriate financial penalty (the Guidance). The Guidance applied in this case was that issued in 30 May 2023.
5.3 Having regard to the Guidance, the SRA considers that the nature of the misconduct should be categorised as 'more serious'. Mr Wright's conduct was intentional, reckless and formed a pattern of misconduct. The Guidance gives this type of misconduct a score of three.
5.4 The SRA considers that the impact of the misconduct was medium because it had the potential to cause moderate loss or have a moderate impact. The Guidance gives this level of impact a score of four.
5.5 The nature and impact scores add up to seven. The Guidance indicates that penalty bracket C is applicable. The SRA considers that Mr Wright's conduct was reckless but not grossly reckless. There was no actual loss to the client. The SRA considers that the applicable basic penalty scale was C4 which equates to a penalty equivalent to 32% of Mr Wright's gross annual income.
5.6 The SRA had regard to statements of means supplied by Mr Wright in June 2023 and December 2024 which indicated that Mr Wright had a limited gross annual income. On the basis of that information, the SRA agreed that a financial penalty of £5,000 was appropriate.
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. Mr Wright agrees to the publication of this agreement.
7. Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement
7.1. If Mr Wright 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.
7.2. 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.
7.3. By entering into this Agreement, the SRA confirms that this matter is concluded.
8. Costs
8.1. Mr Wright agrees to pay the costs of the SRA's investigation in the sum of £6,200. Such costs are due within 28 days of a statement of costs due being issued by the SRA.
The date of this Agreement is 19 January 2026.