JACKSON QUINN

Decision - Sanction

Outcome: Rebuke

Outcome date: 21 September 2026

Published date: 22 September 2026

Firm details

No detail provided:

Outcome details

This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

Decision details

1. Agreed outcome

1.1 Jackson Quinn (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 rebuked
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 15 and 18 August 2024, the Firm self-reported to the SRA that it held insufficient funds to meet liabilities to clients due to the actions of a member of staff. The Firm have promptly replaced the money which had been improperly withdrawn from the client account.

2.2 The SRA investigated the Firm's report and identified the following concerns in relation to the Firm:

1. Between December 2019 and July 2024, the Firm did not conduct compliant three-way client account reconciliations. The client account reconciliations did not comply with the SRA Accounts Rules because the reconciliation did not include the matter balance listing.
2. During this time, the Firm also allowed an individual who was not its Compliance Officer for Finance and Administration or a manager of the Firm to review and sign off client account reconciliations.
3. In 2014, the Firm identified residual balances of £936.17 which were due back to clients of the Firm; some of the residual balances remained on ledgers until as late as January 2023.
4. Between January 2024 and August 2024, the Firm failed to implement adequate processes for the supervision of probate matters. At the time, the Head of Conveyancing was also the Head of Probate and the responsible fee earner for probate matters. However, he spent limited time on probate work and relied heavily on trainee solicitors to progress matters with minimal supervision.

3. Admissions

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

1. By failing to carry out compliant three-way client account reconciliations between 2019 and July 2024, the Firm breached rule 8.3 of the SRA Accounts Rules.
2. By allowing an individual who was not the Firm's Compliance Officer for Finance and Administration or a manager of the Firm to review and sign off client account reconciliations, the Firm breached rule 8.3 of the SRA Accounts Rules.
3. By failing to ensure client money was returned promptly to the client or third party for whom the money was held when there was no longer any proper reason to hold those funds, the Firm breached, the Firm breached rule 2.5 of the SRA Accounts Rules.
4. By failing to implement adequate processes for the supervision of probate matters, the Firm breached paragraph 4.4 of the Code of Conduct for Firms.

4. Why a written rebuke 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 has taken remedial action and implemented changes since the conduct was identified
2. the Firm self-reported this matter to the SRA
3. the Firm has demonstrated insight and remorse.

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

1. the conduct related to core obligations concerning the safeguarding of client money. The Firm failed to return residual balances to clients promptly, meaning that some clients were deprived of money due to them for a significant period.
2. Its failure to carry out compliant three-way client account reconciliations, and to ensure those reconciliations were reviewed and signed off by the COFA or a manager, weakened key controls intended to identify and prevent client account shortages.
3. The inadequate supervision of probate matters also created a risk that staff would progress matters without appropriate oversight, increasing the risk of errors, delay, or client detriment. A public sanction is therefore required to uphold confidence in the delivery of legal services.
4. the conduct continued for a prolonged period of time
5. the Firm has cooperated with the SRA's investigation
6. there is a low risk of repetition.

5. Publication

5.1 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.

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

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

6.2 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.

6.3 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.

7. Costs

7.1 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.