Jay Allan Tooker
Solicitor
142074

Decision - Agreement

Outcome: Regulatory settlement agreement

Outcome date: 7 July 2026

Published date: 13 July 2026

Firm details

Firm or organisation at time of matters giving rise to outcome

Name: Holman Fenwick Willan LLP

Address(es): 8 Bishopgate, London, EC2N 4BQ

Firm ID: 509977

Outcome details

This outcome was reached by agreement.

Decision details

1. Agreed outcome

1. Jay Allan Tooker ('Mr Tooker'), a solicitor and former employee of Holman Fenwick Willan LLP ('the Firm'), agrees to the following outcome to the investigation of his conduct by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA):

1. he is fined £24,862
2. to the publication of this agreement
3. he will pay the costs of the investigation of £1,350.

2. Summary of Facts

2.1 Mr Tooker was a partner at the Firm and the co-head of the Firm's yacht department. He was employed by the Firm until his retirement on 31 March 2026.

2.2 In or around January 2021, Mr Tooker acted for an existing client, Client X, in respect of the seizure of a yacht. Mr Tooker provided advice in respect of how Client X might retrieve the yacht as well as on outstanding sums of money due to the port authority and to unrelated creditors.

2.3 During an internal audit of 'Know Your Client' checks on regulated matters, the Firm looked into payments that had been made from the monies held on its client account for the matters on which it had been instructed by Client X. The audit identified 22 payments made between 9 March 2021 and 21 December 2021 totalling €150,410.24 and $262,427, in respect of crew salaries, hardstanding, management fees, storage fees and insurance payments.

2.4 Mr Tooker accepts that he authorised the 22 payments, despite none of the payments made being ancillary to or a necessary constituent element of the regulated legal services that the firm had provided to Client X.

3. Admissions

3.1 Mr Tooker makes the following admissions which the SRA accepts:

1. That between 9 March 2021 and 21 December 2021 he authorised 22 payments from the Firm's client account totalling €150,410.24 and $262,427 which were not connected to the delivery of regulated legal services. As a result, the client account was being used to provide banking facilities to Client X in breach of Rule 3.3 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2019.

Rule 3.3 of the SRA Accounts Rules states:

'You must not use a client account to provide banking facilities to clients or third parties. Payments into, and transfers or withdrawals from a client account must be in respect of the delivery by you of regulated services.'

2. That his conduct in authorising 22 payments to be made in the period and manner described above in breach of Rule 3.3 did not uphold public trust and confidence in the solicitors' profession and in legal services provided by authorised persons and was also in breach of Principle 2.

Principle 2 of the SRA Principles states:

'You act in a way that upholds public trust and confidence in the solicitors' profession and in legal services provided by authorised persons.'

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 Mr Tooker and the following mitigation which he has put forward:

1. He has co-operated fully with the SRA investigation, including the timely provision of all necessary information.
2. He has been admitted to the roll of solicitors since 1989, with no regulatory history prior to these events nor current matters outstanding, therefore, the risk of repetition is low.
3. He has shown genuine insight into the failings which occurred and has expressed regret that the breaches occurred.
4. The conduct in question did not in practice cause actual harm or loss to the client or any third party.

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

1. Mr Tooker's conduct showed a disregard for his regulatory obligations to exercise proper management over client account money. The lack of control and proper oversight of the client account led to the account being repeatedly used to provide banking facilities.
2. Mr Tooker's conduct in the matter was serious as it took place over a number of months and given that a large number of transfers were made over a nine-month period it formed a pattern of conduct.
3. A financial penalty is appropriate to maintain professional standards because any lesser sanction would not provide a credible deterrent to Mr Tooker and other regulated persons.

4.4 A fine is appropriate to uphold public confidence in the solicitors' profession and in legal services provided by authorised persons. 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 Mr Tooker agree that the nature of the misconduct was more serious because it continued over a number of months, involved a number of large transfers being made from the client account and continued after it was known to be improper. As a result, it formed a pattern of misconduct. Table 1 of the Guidance (identifying seriousness) gives the nature of such conduct a score of three.

5.3 The SRA considers that the impact of the misconduct was low because it did not cause harm, loss or other direct material impact to clients or others. Although there was a potential for harm to be caused, this was not realised. Table 1 of the Guidance (identifying seriousness) gives this impact of harm a score of two.

5.4 The nature and impact scores add up to five (overall band of seriousness), which places the conduct within penalty bracket B using Table 2 Penalty Brackets of the Guidance. Table 2: Basic Penalty Amount Individuals in the Guidance indicates the available penalty range for Penalty Bracket B is between 5% and 11% of Mr Tooker's gross annual income.

5.5 Mr Tooker's conduct persisted for some time and formed a pattern of behaviour over a nine-month period involving multiple transfers from the client account. The SRA considers a basic penalty of 5% to be appropriate.

5.6 Based on the evidence Mr Tooker has provided of his gross annual income for the most recent tax year, this results in a basic penalty of £33,150.

5.7 Having determined a specific figure for the basic penalty, the SRA considers that it is appropriate to reduce the penalty to take account of the fact that Mr Tooker made early admissions to the breaches and cooperated with the SRA's investigation. The penalty is therefore reduced by 25% to £24,862.

5.8 Mr Tooker does not appear to have made any financial gain or received any other benefit as a result of his conduct. Therefore, no deduction to the fine amount is necessary. The final amount of the fine is £24,862.

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. Mr Tooker agrees to the publication of this agreement.

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

7.1 Mr Tooker agrees that he will not deny the admissions made in this agreement or act in any way which is inconsistent with it.

7.2 If Mr Tooker 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 Denying the admissions made or 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 7.3 of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs.

8. Costs

8.1 Mr Tooker agrees to pay the costs of the SRA's investigation in the sum of £1,350. Such costs are due within 28 days of a statement of costs being issued by the SRA.