Pothecary Witham Weld Solicitors
84 Eccleston Square, Pimlico, London , SW1V 1PX
Recognised body
446834

Decision - Agreement

Outcome: Regulatory settlement agreement

Outcome date: 12 June 2026

Published date: 30 June 2026

Firm details

No detail provided:

Outcome details

This outcome was reached by agreement.

Decision details

1. Agreed outcome

1.1 Pothecary Witham Weld Solicitors (the firm), a recognised body authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), agrees to the following outcome to the investigation of its conduct:

1. it will pay a financial penalty in the sum of £25,000, under Rule 3.1(b) of the SRA Regulatory and Disciplinary Procedure Rules (RDPRs),
2. to the publication of this agreement, under Rule 9.2 of the RDPRs, and
3. it will pay the costs of the investigation of £600, under Rule 10.1 and Schedule 1 of the RDPRs.

2. Summary of Facts

2.1 We carried out an investigation into the firm following a desk-based review (DBR) by our Anti-Money Laundering (AML) Proactive Supervision Team.

2.2 Our DBR and subsequent investigation identified areas of concern in relation to the firm’s compliance with The Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017 (MLRs 2017), the SRA Principles 2011, the SRA Code of Conduct 2011, the SRA Principles [2019] and the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms [2019].

2.3 In three files reviewed, the firm failed to assess the level of risk as required by Regulation 28(12) and Regulation 28(13) of the MLRs 2017.

2.4 Between 26 June 2017 and 31 August 2023, the firm failed to establish and maintain Policies, Controls and Procedures (PCPs) to mitigate and effectively manage the risks of money laundering and terrorist financing identified in any risk assessment, pursuant to Regulation 19 of the MLRs 2017.

3. Admissions

3.1 The firm admits, and the SRA accepts, that by failing to comply with the MLRs 2017:

From 26 June 2017 to 24 November 2019 (when the SRA Handbook 2011 was in force) it failed to achieve or breached:

1. Outcome 7.2 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011 – which states that you must have effective systems and controls in place to achieve and comply with all the Principles, rules and outcomes and other requirements of the Handbook, where applicable.
2. Outcome 7.5 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011 – which states you must comply with legislation applicable to your business, including anti-money laundering and data protection legislation.
3. Principle 6 of the SRA Principles 2011 – which states you must behave in a way that maintains the trust the public places in you and in the provision of legal Services.
4. Principle 8 of the SRA Principles 2011 – which states you must run your business or carry out your role in the business effectively and in accordance with proper governance and sound financial and risk management principles.

From 25 November 2019 (when the SRA Standards and Regulations came into force) until December 2025, it breached:

5. Principle 2 of the SRA Principles [2019] – which states you act in a way that upholds public trust and confidence in the solicitors' profession and in legal services provided by authorised persons.
6. Paragraph 2.1(a) of the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms [2019] – which states you have effective governance structures, arrangements, systems, and controls in place that ensure you comply with all the SRA's regulatory arrangements, as well as with other regulatory and legislative requirements, which apply to you.
7. Paragraph 3.1 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms [2019] – which states that you keep up to date with and follow the law and regulation governing the way you work.

4. Why a fine 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 considered the admissions made by the firm and the following mitigation:

1. the firm made an early admission, submitting a self-report with respect to the PCP failure
2. the firm has taken steps to rectify its failings, including having put PCPs in place prior to engagement from the regulator
3. the firm has cooperated with the AML Proactive Supervision and AML Investigation teams, and
4. there is no evidence of harm to clients having taken place.

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

1. the conduct showed a disregard towards statutory and regulatory obligations and had the potential to cause harm by failing to have a compliant AML control environment in place, which left the firm susceptible to money laundering and/or terrorist financing,
2. it was incumbent on the firm to meet the requirements set out in the MLRs 2017. The firm failed to do so. The public would expect a firm of solicitors to comply with its legal and regulatory obligations, and
3. the agreed outcome is a proportionate outcome to the public interest because it creates a credible deterrent to others. The issuing of a sanction signifies the risk to the public, and the legal sector, which arises when solicitors do not comply with AML legislation and their professional regulatory rules.

4.4 Rule 4.1 of the RDPRs states that a financial penalty may be appropriate to maintain professional standards and uphold public confidence in the solicitors’ profession and in the legal services provided by authorised persons. There is nothing within this Agreement that conflicts with Rule 4.1 of the RDPRs and on that basis, a financial penalty is appropriate.

5. Amount of the fine

5.1 The amount of the fine has been calculated in line with the SRA’s published guidance on its approach to setting an appropriate financial penalty (the Guidance).

5.2 We have assessed the nature of conduct in this matter as more serious (score of three). This is because, owing to the significant length of non-compliance, we consider the firm’s conduct showed a disregard for its regulatory obligations, which formed part of a pattern of misconduct. This was assessed as more serious given that the lack of procedure had impacted at file level, with missing or insufficient information on multiple files reviewed. It was also noted the firm had recognised the need to implement PCPs several years before subsequently doing so.

5.3 The harm or risk of harm is assessed as being medium (score of four). Although there was no evidence of direct loss to any client, the firm’s conduct left it moderately vulnerable to the risks of money laundering, particularly when acting in conveyancing transactions.

5.4 The ‘nature’ of the conduct and the ‘impact of harm or risk of harm’ scored add up to a score of seven. This places the penalty in the Band ‘C’, as directed by the Guidance.

5.5 We and the firm agree a financial penalty in the lower part of the band. This is because the PCP failure had been corrected prior to engagement by the regulator and in consideration of the size and nature of the firm.

5.6 Based on the evidence the firm has provided of its annual domestic turnover for the most recent tax year; this results in a basic penalty of £37,847.

5.7 The SRA considers that the basic penalty should be reduced to £25,000. This reduction reflects the mitigation set out in paragraph 4.2 above and the SRA’s discretion permitted in the Guidance.

5.8 The firm does not appear to have made any financial gain or received any other benefit as a result of its conduct. Therefore, no adjustment is necessary to remove this, and the amount of the fine remains at £25,000.

6. Publication

6.1 Rule 9.2 of the RDPRs states that any decision under Rule 3.1 or 3.2, including a financial penalty, shall be published unless the circumstances outweigh the public interest in publication.

6.2 The SRA considers it appropriate that this agreement is published as there are no circumstances that outweigh the public interest in publication, and it is in the interest of transparency in the regulatory and disciplinary process. The firm agrees to the publication of this agreement.

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

7.1 The firm agrees that it will not deny the admissions made in this agreement or act in any way which is inconsistent with it.

7.2 If the firm 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.

7.3 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.

8. Costs

8.1 The firm agrees to pay the costs of the SRA’s investigation in the sum of £600. Such costs are due within 28 days of a statement of costs due being issued by the SRA.