A sole practitioner fined £3,500 by the Solicitors Regulation Authority over AML failings has lost his challenge against the decision – and been hit for £12,300 in costs.
Max Wiley of Max Wiley & Co, based in North Norfolk, told the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal that the adjudication panel’s decision was based on a flawed investigation.
Wiley, representing himself at the tribunal, said the investigator who identified the firm’s non-compliance was not independent or experienced enough to make such a judgement call. He further argued that the SRA had failed to apply the discretion that should be afforded to a sole practitioner in terms of how money laundering policies and procedures are applied.
The tribunal rejected his appeal, saying the firm was under an obligation to regularly assess risk factors and carry out client due diligence, irrespective of its size or profile. The tribunal noted the SRA’s assertion that Wiley’s good faith and honesty were never in doubt, but instead the case against him was that the firm ‘got it wrong’.
‘There was no suggestion the firm nor Mr Wiley was ever used to facilitate crime,’ concluded the tribunal. ‘Mr Wiley is plainly a conscientious and principled solicitor who acted throughout in good faith and in sincere conviction of the correctness of his position. His difficulty was not one of probity but of approach: he adopted an entrenched view of the requirements of the regulations. Whilst honestly held, this view did not vitiate the actions of the [SRA] nor render the panel decision irrational or unlawful.’
The tribunal heard that the panel found four allegations proved against the practice: failing to have in place a firm-wide risk assessment, failing to establish and maintain compliant policies, failing to conduct client and matter risk assessment, and failing to obtain client identification documents. The first three breaches covered the period between 2017 and 2025.
The SRA assessed the nature of the conduct as ‘more serious’ and set the sanction at 2.8% of the firm’s £125,000 annual domestic turnover.
The firm came to the SRA’s attention in 2024 when an AML associate referred it to the investigation team. Wiley complained that the subsequent investigation was conducted on a fake premise and that the associate had lacked relevant experience of sole practitioners. He pointed to the outcome letter referring to ‘senior management’ and ‘fee-earners’ – neither of which was applicable.
The tribunal said it understood Wiley’s frustration with these errors but they did not detract from the conclusions reached in the letter. It rejected the suggestion there had been ‘systemic unreliability’ in the SRA’s approach and said the panel had applied the law correctly and made findings of fact that were open and reasonable. The appeal was dismissed.
