Law Society Gazette reporting that the SRA are considering a one-off levy on solicitors to top up the Compensation Fund so it can cover Axiom Ince's collapse.
A few questions on that:
- Why should other solicitors, who haven't been raiding client accounts and generally fooking everything up, have to cover the behaviour of a load of cowboys? Surely the partners / directors at the firm should be targeted and fleeced first?
- What the actual fook were the SRA doing the whole time while this was going on?
- If this levy goes ahead, then surely the SRA need to focus their infamous witch-hunting powers on the officers of the company for money, strike off and disqualifications?
Interested in thoughts.
0
0
What's happened to the 56 million?
3
0
Allegedly Pragnesh Modhwadia stole the client money to buy properties (lots of them) and also to buyer Ince and another law firm. Assuming the Ince partners who sold the business were paid in cash presumably taking that cash back including their homes and seizing the properties PM bought in his own name or names of family members is a starting point before going after solicitors for the cash. I do not even hold clients' money and I have never been in favour of the new complex takeovers and law firm as investments and all that modern stuff that seems to go so very badly.
0
0
Unbelievable
0
0
posh people are such bad judges of character
I bet this guy was a fcking blatant dodgy geezer but because he was pushy and confident they thought oh great yes here's all my cash
there should be a tax on rich fannies instead for being so gullible
2
0
also, how did he do all this without a single money laundering check throwing something up?
0
0
You must be new to the UK. He had the money, there were people happy to take it, stop being such a f@nny.
1
0
Yeah that's not how it works. He should have been asked to prove where he got the money.
1
0
Good to know even legally qualified people are this bad at the regulatory framework tho
1
0
The problem here is they are LLPs so no claim against other partners absent complicity. It's a ludicrous regime overseen by fookwits set up for a world of high street sized firms.
1
0
Rham - the money laundering checks are b*ll*cks basically.
1
0
Ince and Co used to be a fine and reputable City firm. Wtf happened?
0
0
That's how it should work. Not how it does work once you know where to go - which is that place where no questions will be asked. Exhibit A: Pragnesh Modhwadia
0
0
“Ince and Co used to be a fine and reputable City firm. Wtf happened? ”
Wasn’t a roffer there? Or their dad? They might know.
0
0
wasn’t it pretty much only the name left at ince when gordondaddsspivshysteraccumulator llp reversed into it?
0
0
there’s always a few west end firms willing to turn a blind eye - like child&child where lots of gordon dadds shysters have landed - where some data leak revealed that they’d decided that the daughters of some central asia dictator buying London property for 10m GBP were obviously not PEP….
0
0
They probably caused the sh*t show tbh.
0
0
I am not sure I am comfortable being part of a profession that is regulated by a professional body that is arguably not competent. It’s clear from the reporting of its prosecutions that it has turned into a trial court investigating amongst others sexual misconduct for which it does not have the training. skills or resources. It bullies the profession then requests more money from the profession. It should be disbanded and a new regulator created which deals only with financial and regulatory issues. Other personnel issues should be dealt with by HR and employment tribunals or other courts. In my view this regulator is more destructive and damaging to vulnerable individuals than the harm it purports to regulate.
1
0
What the actual fook were the SRA doing the whole time while this was going on?’
sanctioning paralegals who had backdated some letter by a couple of days
0
0
as if I’m going to pay this. GTFOOH
0
0
The SRA can get tf if they think we should all pay a few hundred quid each because of this criminal and his enablers. Hopefully there would be mass refusal to pay if they did come cap in hand.
I was at Ince & Co for a few years and left in 2014. (and I'm pretty sure I had nothing to do with the shitshow, 3 ducks!)
0
0
I do enjoy Lydia torysplaining
0
0
Not sure the sra has power to do this but in any case my gaff will contribute as it's the right thing to do
0
0
In the meantime thanks heavens my new practising certificate is in English and Welsh.
0
0
You think they’re bad, meet the GMC.
1
0
Presumably when Axiom asked for permission to buy those other firms, the SRA asked what its source of funds were..? Right?
1
0
All this ABS malarkey has clearly been a bad mistake, and has encouraged a bunch of complete charlatans to asset strip our profession.
Its predictably sad that the gormless idiots at the SRA have actually acted as cheerleaders for them over the years.
0
0
Probably not, but if they had asked, he'd probably told them the funds were sitting in a client account at a major firm. Not a lie, and good enough for them.
0
0
'major firm' would be a lie surely?
0
0
Tbh I’m surprised more of the profession does not move to a consultancy basis. There must be 10,000s of lawyers never going near a reserved activity. Why put up with this shit?
0
0
Worf - I'd be v interested to hear if anyone has looked at this or even done it.... interested in a split firm structure with one entity for reserved activity, practising certificates, indemnity insurance (on a much lower turnover of course) and the other with non-reserved. Same ownership.
Anyone?
Join the discussion