top of page
Search

It wasn't dishonesty. It was a shortcut.

Writer: Ashley Barwick
Ashley Barwick
Nov 3
4 min read

Two stories this week describe the same problem from opposite ends.


On Monday, Legal Futures reported the case of Musa Audu, a solicitor who qualified in 1997 and ran a North London crime and family firm. He was cleared of tipping off a client about a police investigation. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal accepted he was a credible witness who had complied with his duty to his client.


He was still fined £10,500, ordered to pay £46,600 in costs, and had his practising certificate restricted, stopping him running a firm, holding client money or acting as compliance officer.


The tribunal's word for why was laziness. It found he had "a disregard for due process and sought out short cuts". His own advocate described his administrative skills as "hopeless".


Sheepish or not sheepish?
Sheepish or not sheepish?

What the shortcuts were


Read the list and notice what is not on it. No theft. No lie to a client.


  • Five transfers from client to office account totalling £10,100, made as the firm approached its £10,000 overdraft limit, with no bill raised for each transfer.

  • The client account used as a banking facility for two clients who lacked UK bank accounts and wanted to avoid losing value on transfers to and from Nigeria.

  • No compliant firm-wide risk assessment, policies, controls and procedures for the Money Laundering Regulations.

  • Source of funds not properly checked, and no risk assessment carried out, on two transactions.


The tribunal rejected dishonesty. Mr Audu genuinely believed the money was his, and it probably was. The difficulty was proving it: he never sent the bills that would have said so.


The second story


On Tuesday, the Law Society Gazette reported that the Legal Ombudsman is braced for more than 21,000 complaints in 2027/28, having taken over 8,700 in the first half of 2026 alone. Demand was up 31% year on year in the first quarter, and 43% in the second.


The causes are not exotic. Poor communication and delay accounted for around 45% of complaint types in both quarters. Roughly a quarter said they had not received a final response from their lawyer before approaching the Ombudsman.


That is not a legal problem. It is an email not sent.


The question the regulator now asks


A Legal Futures piece last week on SRA supervision and AI put the regulator's central question plainly: did the firm know what it was doing, and can it prove this, based on what it recorded at the time?


That framing is not about AI. It is the question the tribunal asked of Mr Audu, and the question your files will be asked one day.


Two firms can do identical work. In one, the file explains the decision. In the other, the file is silent, and whoever made the decision has to explain it from memory, years later, to a panel.


What this means in practice


Nothing here requires a project. It requires three habits.


Raise the bill. If money moves, a bill should exist explaining why. It is the cheapest insurance in the profession.

Write the note that explains the why. Not what you did, but why. A complete file is one a stranger could pick up and understand.

Answer the client before they escalate. A holding message on day three costs three minutes.


The Ombudsman case costs considerably more.


And check that your written procedures describe what actually happens, not what happened in 2019.


What this does not mean


It would be easy to conclude the regulator is out to get small firms. That is not fair.


Mr Audu was not a dishonest man, and the tribunal said so plainly. Almost two-thirds of resolved complaints close at early resolution without in-depth investigation. The system is not stacked against you.


The point is narrower. The failures that end firms are usually administrative, and administrative failures are the cheapest kind to fix, provided somebody looks at them before an assessor does.


That is the argument for independent review. Not to find wrongdoing, but to find the missing bill, the unrecorded reason and the unanswered client in time.


Start with a conversation


If you want an independent view of where your firm stands on file discipline, client money and source of funds, I offer a complimentary health check with no obligation. The contact page is an enquiry form. Put "complimentary health check" in the subject and I will pick it up straight away.



Ashley Barwick is a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives and a Law Society accredited Lexcel Consultant. This post is general information and does not constitute legal advice. Fraxinus Business Associates is not authorised to provide legal advice.


Sources



 
 
 

Comments

Rated 0 out of 5 stars.
No ratings yet
Add a rating
bottom of page