Kirkwoods
41a Church Road, STANMORE , HA7 4AB
Recognised body
079929

Decision - Agreement

Outcome: Regulatory settlement agreement

Outcome date: 20 January 2026

Published date: 9 February 2026

Firm details

No detail provided:

Outcome details

This outcome was reached by agreement.

Decision details

1. Agreed Outcome

1.1 Kirkwoods (the firm), a recognised body, authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), agrees to the following outcome to the investigation:

1. it will pay a financial penalty in the sum of £3,476, under Rule 3.1(b) of the SRA Regulatory and Disciplinary Procedures Rules,
2. to the publication of this agreement, under Rule 9.2 of the SRA Regulatory and Disciplinary Procedures Rules; and
3. it will pay the costs of the investigation of £600, under Rule 10.1 and Schedule 1 of the SRA Regulatory and Disciplinary Procedures Rules.

2. Summary of Facts

2.1 We carried out an investigation into the firm following an inspection by our AML Proactive Supervision Team.

2.2 Our inspection and subsequent investigation identified areas of concern in relation to the firm's compliance with the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017 (MLRs 2017), the Money Laundering Regulations 2007 (MLRs 2007), the SRA Principles 2011, the SRA Code of Conduct 2011, the SRA Principles [2019] and the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms [2019].

Policies and procedures (P&Ps)

2.3 Between 6 October 2011 and 25 June 2017, the firm failed to establish and maintain appropriate and risk-sensitive policies and procedures (P&Ps), pursuant to Regulation 20(1) of the MLRs 2007.

Policies, controls and procedures (PCPs)

2.4 Between 26 June 2017 and 11 February 2025, the firm failed to regularly review, update and maintain a record in writing of its policies, controls, and procedures (PCPs) to mitigate and manage effectively the risks of money laundering and terrorist financing, identified in any risk assessment (FWRA), pursuant to Regulations 19(1)(b) and 19(1)(c) of the MLRs 2017.

Firm-wide risk assessment (FWRA)

2.5 Between 26 June 2017 to 11 January 2022, the firm failed to keep an up-to-date record in writing of its assessments of the risks of money laundering and terrorist financing to which its business was subject (a firm-wide risk assessment (FWRA)), pursuant to Regulations 18(4) and 18(6) of the MLRs 2017.

3. Admissions

3.1 The firm admits, and the SRA accepts, that by failing to comply with the MLRs 2007 and MLRs 2017, it has breached or failed to achieve: To the extent that the conduct took place on or before 24 November 2019 (when the SRA Handbook 2011 was in force):

1. 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.
2. Principle 7 of the SRA Principles 2011 - which states you must comply with your legal and regulatory obligations and deal with your regulators and ombudsmen in an open, timely and co-operative manner.
3. 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.
4. Outcome 7.2 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011 - which states you must achieve these Outcomes: you 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.
5. Outcome 7.3 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011 - which states you must achieve these Outcomes: you identify, monitor and manage risks to compliance with all the Principles, rules and outcomes and other requirements of the Handbook, if applicable to you, and take steps to address issues identified.
6. Outcome 7.5 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011 - which states you must achieve these Outcomes: you comply with legislation applicable to your business, including anti-money laundering and data protection legislation. In so far as the conduct took place from 25 November 2019 onwards (when the SRA Standards and Regulations came into force):
7. Principle 2 of the SRA Principles 2019 - which states you must act in a way that upholds public trust and confidence in the solicitors' profession and in legal services provided by authorised persons.
8. Paragraph 2.1(a) of the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms - which state you must 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.
9. Paragraph 2.2 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms - which states you must keep and maintain records to demonstrate compliance with your obligations under the SRA's regulatory arrangements.
10. Paragraph 3.1 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms - which states you must keep up to date with and follow the law and regulation governing the way you work.
11. Paragraph 3.3(a) of the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms - which states you must respond promptly to the SRA and provide full and accurate explanations, information, and documents in response to any request or requirement.

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 taken into account the admissions made by the firm and the following mitigation

1. The firm took steps to rectify its failings and is compliant with the MLRs 2017.
2. At the time of the desk-based review, the firm's current FWRA, PCPs and CMRA were found to be compliant with the MLRs 2017, so there was limited exposure to ongoing risks.
3. The firm has cooperated with the SRA's AML Proactive Supervision and AML Investigation teams.
4. The firm has admitted the breaches listed above at the earliest opportunity.

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 a potential to cause harm by failing to have compliant AML control documentation 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 2007 and MLRs 2017. The firm failed to do so. The public would expect a firm of solicitors to comply with its legal and regulatory obligations, to protect against these risks as a bare minimum.
3. The agreed outcome is a proportionate outcome in the public interest because it creates a credible deterrent to others and the issuing of such a sanction signifies the risk to the public, and the legal sector, that arises when solicitors do not comply with anti-money laundering legislation and their professional regulatory rules.

4.4 Rule 4.1 of the Regulatory and Disciplinary Procedures Rules states that a financial penalty may be appropriate to maintain professional standards and uphold public confidence in the solicitors' profession and in legal services provided by authorised persons. There is nothing within this Agreement which conflicts with Rule 4.1 of the Regulatory and Disciplinary Procedures Rules 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, although there was no direct loss to clients, the firm only became compliant with the MLRs 2017 because of our AML desk-based review and guidance we have provided. The breach has arisen because of recklessness and a failure to pay sufficient regard to money laundering regulations, published guidance and SRA warning notices. The firm has failed to ensure that it was fully compliant with its statutory obligations until February 2025 a period of over seven years since the MLRs 2017 came into effect.

5.3 The impact of the harm or risk of harm is assessed as being low (score of two). The nature of conveyancing is considered high-risk, owing to the risk of abuse of the system by criminals. We note the firm currently undertakes around three-quarters of its work in scope of the MLRs 2017, via mainly conveyancing. This puts it at a risk of being used to launder money. A failure to regularly review, update and maintain its AML controls is a serious AML control failing that could have led to money laundering and/or terrorist financing. However, there is no evidence of there being any direct loss to clients or actual harm caused as a result of the firm's failure to ensure it had proper documentation in place.

5.4 The 'nature' of the conduct and the 'impact of harm or risk of harm' added together give a score of five. This places the penalty in Band “B”, as directed by the Guidance.

5.5 We and the firm agree a financial penalty at the middle of the bracket. This is because, despite the lack of compliance until December 2025 when the firm became compliant with Regulation 11(d) of the MLRs 2017, we are pleased to see the firm has registered itself as a provider of tax adviser services, and the firm's AML controls at the time of the desk-based review were deemed compliant with the MLRs 2017.

5.6 Based on the evidence the firm has provided of its annual domestic turnover, this results in a basic penalty of £4,090.

5.7 The SRA considers that the basic penalty should be reduced to £3,476. This reduction reflects the mitigation set out at paragraph 4.2 above.

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, and the financial penalty is £3,476.

6. Publication

6.1 Rule 9.2 of the SRA Regulatory and Disciplinary Procedures Rules states that any decision under Rule 3.1 or 3.2, including a Financial Penalty, shall be published unless the particular circumstances outweigh the public interest in public.

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.

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 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 3.2 of the Code of Conduct for Firms.

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 immediately following a statement of costs due being issued by the SRA.

Decision - Agreement

Outcome: Regulatory settlement agreement

Outcome date: 21 May 2024

Published date: 22 May 2024

Firm details

No detail provided:

Outcome details

This outcome was reached by agreement.

Decision details

1. Agreed outcome

1.1 Kirkwoods (the firm), a Recognised Body agrees to the following outcome to the investigation of its conduct by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA):

1. it is fined £1950
2. to the publication of this agreement
3. it will pay the costs of the investigation of £300.

2. Summary of Facts

2.1 On 25 March 2021 the firm's reporting accountants submitted a qualified accountant's report covering the period 1 April 2019-31 March 2020. The report identified breaches of the SRA Accounts Rules (the rules) around a number of client ledgers containing aged residual balances.

2.2 The SRA contacted the firm on 22 April 2021 and raised queries about the breaches identified in the accountant's report. The information provided by the firm showed 95 client matters with residual balances which were over 200 weeks' old. The SRA requested that the firm takes steps to resolve the aged balances and bring the firm into compliance with the rules.

2.3 The report from the SRA Ethics Team identified nine communications from the SRA to the firm between April 2021 and February 2023 asking the firm to address the identified breaches of the rules, and seven responses from the firm. At the end of this time an unidentified number of aged balances remained in the firm's client accounts.

2.4 The slow progress made towards resolving the identified breaches through engagement led the SRA to open an investigation on 7 March 2023.

2.5 On 27 March 2023, the firm reported to the SRA that they still held 39 client files with aged residual balances.

2.6 On 7 November 2023, the firm provided evidence which showed that the firm had cleared all but one of the aged residual client balances. The firm outlined the steps they were taking to clear the last aged balance which relates to a commercial matter. The firm continue to work on clearing this sole remaining balance with the relevant parties as of the date of this agreement.

2.7 The firm has provided information about the measures they have put in place to avoid residual balances accumulating on client files in the future. This has included engaging staff to manage the firm's accounts and retaining a qualified accountant.

3. Admissions

3.1 The firm makes the following admissions which the SRA accepts:

1. The firm admits breaching Solicitors Accounts Rules 2019 Rule 2.5 - You ensure that client money is returned promptly to the client, or the third party for whom the money is held, as soon as there is no longer any proper reason to hold those funds.

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 taken into account the admissions made by the firm and the following mitigation which it has put forward:

1. The firm made an early and full admission of its breaches which were identified.
2. The firm has worked to rectify the breaches. The remaining residual balance relates to a commercial matter and is in the process of being cleared.
3. The firm has identified why the breaches occurred and has now put in place appropriately qualified staff and external accountants to ensure that the breaches do not arise again in the future.

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

1. Proper record keeping for the holding of client money goes to the core of the SRA's regulatory role and public interest purpose. Firms hold client funds as custodians, and up to date and accurate accounting records ensure that the firm can properly account to clients.
2. The breaches were rectified, and remedial action taken. However, as a result of the firm's conduct there has been an unacceptable delay in returning money to clients.
3. There is no evidence of any financial loss or harm to clients.
4. The firm has identified the circumstances which led to it breaching the rules. The firm has taken action to ensure that the breaches to not recur, by employing suitably qualified staff and retaining external accountants.

4.4 A fine is appropriate to maintain professional standards and uphold public confidence in the solicitors' profession and in legal services provided by authorised persons because it fulfils the purpose of deterring the firm or individual and others from similar behaviour in future. A financial penalty therefore meets the requirements of rule 4.1 of the Regulatory and Disciplinary Procedure Rules.

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 Having regard to the Guidance, the SRA and the firm agree that the nature of the misconduct was more serious. This is because it continued for a long time after it was known to be improper. The Guidance gives this type of misconduct a score of three.

5.3 The SRA considers that the impact of the misconduct was low because it caused no/minimal loss to clients and there is no evidence it had any direct material impact on the legal work offered. The Guidance gives this level of impact a score of two.

5.4 The nature and impact scores add up to five. The Guidance places this in penalty bracket B and indicates a basic penalty of between 0.4% and 1.2% of gross annual turnover for the most recent financial year (2022-2023)

5.5 In deciding the level of fine within this bracket, the SRA has considered the mitigation at paragraph 4 above which the firm has put forward:

1. The firm made an early and full admission of its breaches which were identified.
2. The firm has rectified the breaches.
3. The firm has identified why the breaches occurred and has now put in place appropriately qualified staff and external accountants to ensure that the breaches do not arise again in the future.

5.6 The SRA has taken into account that although the breaches persisted for a long time, there was no evidence of dishonesty or any impact for clients on the management of their legal matters.

5.7 The firm has identified why it came to breach the rules. It has identified and put in place systems and controls to ensure a similar situation does not arise in the future.

5.8 The SRA therefore considers a basic penalty of £2,452.21, which is placed at the lower end of the bracket, to be appropriate.

5.9 The SRA considers that the basic penalty should be reduced by 20 percent. This is to reflect the firm's early admission of the conduct and the firm's cooperation with the investigation. This results in a penalty of £1950.

5.10 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 is £1950.

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 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 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 3.2 of the Code of Conduct for Firms.

8. Costs

8.1 The firm 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.