Siobu
Brady
Solicitor
375031
Decision - Sanction
Outcome: Rebuke
Outcome date: 7 May 2026
Published date: 8 June 2026
Firm details
Firm or organisation at time of matters giving rise to outcome
Name: Raegal Limited
Address(es): Office 12, 203-205 The Vale, London, W3 7QS
Firm ID: 639011
Firm or organisation at date of publication
Name: Crosslife Solicitors Limited
Address(es): Suite 210 2nd Floor City Gate House, 246-250 Romford Road, Forestgate, London, E7 9HZ
Firm ID: 8010708
Outcome details
This outcome was reached by SRA decision.
Decision details
Who does this disciplinary decision relate to?
Siobu Brady is a solicitor. She was the sole manager and owner of Raegal Limited of Office 12, 203-205 The Vale, London, W3 7QS (the firm). The firm was a regulated body that closed by intervention on 26 August 2025.
Short summary of decision
We have issued Mrs Brady with a rebuke for failing to comply with an undertaking within a reasonable amount of time; allowing the firm to carry out conveyancing and post completion work after the expiry of its policy of qualifying professional insurance; accepting new instructions on two occasions during and/or after the Cessation Period (CP) and failing to ensure that the firm's accounting records were being properly maintained to show all its dealings with client and office money or to ensure appropriate record keeping of all client money.
Facts of the misconduct
Solicitors are required to perform all undertakings which they give within an agreed timescale or if no timescale has been agreed then within a reasonable amount of time.
All firms authorised by the SRA are required to have a valid policy of professional indemnity insurance (PII) to be able to carry on a practice.
The firm's final PII policy expired on 16 July 2024. It entered the extended policy period (EPP) on 17 July 2024 and entered the CP on 16 August 2024. After this date it should not have taken on any new clients. The CP expired on 14 October 2024. After this date it should not have carried on any legal work as it did not have PII in place.
It was found that:
- Mrs Brady failed to comply with an undertaking dated 18 March 2024 within a reasonable amount of time in breach of Paragraph 1.3 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs, RFLS and RSLs.
- Mrs Brady allowed the firm to carry out conveyancing and post completion work after the expiry of the firm's PII on 14 October 2024
- accepted new instructions during and/or after the CP, on or around 20 September 2024 and 7 November 2024 in both cases in breach of rules 2.4 and 4.2 of the SRA Indemnity Insurance Rules, Paragraph 4.2 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms and SRA Principles 2 and 7.
- Mrs Brady failed to ensure that the firm's accounting records were being properly maintained to show all its dealings with client and office money and failed to ensure appropriate record keeping of all client money in breach of rules 8.1 and 8.3 of the SRA Accounts Rules, Paragraph 4.2 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs, RFLs and RSLs, Paragraph 9.2 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms and SRA Principle 2.
Reasons/basis
It was decided that a rebuke was an appropriate and proportionate sanction. Mrs Brady was issued with a written rebuke and ordered to pay costs of £1,350. This was because Mrs Brady's conduct was serious by reference to the following factors in the SRA Enforcement Strategy:
- Mrs Brady was the sole manager and owner of the firm. She had direct responsibility for her own conduct.
- Solicitors practising without proper insurance pose a considerable risk to client interests which may not be protected if something goes wrong.
- The breaches persisted longer than they should have done.
- Some public sanction is required to protect the public interest.
A more serious sanction was not considered to be proportionate by reference to the following factors in the SRA Enforcement Strategy:
- There is no evidence of lasting harm to clients or third parties.
- The conduct was not pre-planned or premeditated and there was no financial gain.
- The risk of repetition is low.
- Mrs Brady has co-operated with the SRA's investigation.
- There were no allegations of dishonesty or a lack of integrity.
Decision - Control of practice
Outcome: Condition
Outcome date: 7 May 2026
Published date: 8 June 2026
Firm details
Firm or organisation at time of matters giving rise to outcome
Name: Raegal Limited
Address(es): Office 12, 203-205 The Vale, London, W3 7QS
Firm ID: 639011
Firm or organisation at date of publication
Name: Crosslife Solicitors Limited
Address(es): Suite 210 2nd Floor City Gate House, 246-250 Romford Road, Forestgate, London, E7 9HZ
Firm ID: 8010708
Outcome details
This outcome was reached by SRA decision.
Decision details
Siobu Brady's practising certificate for 2025/2026 is subject to the following conditions:
- Mrs Brady may not act as a recognised sole practitioner.
- Mrs Brady may not act as a sole manager or sole owner of any authorised body.
- Mrs Brady may not be a compliance officer for legal practice (COLP) or a compliance officer for finance and administration (COFA).
- Mrs Brady may not provide reserved or unreserved legal services on her own account under regulations 10.2(a) or (b) of the SRA Authorisation of Individuals Regulations.
In these conditions the terms are as defined by the SRA Glossary.
Reasons/basis
On 7 May 2026 an authorised decision maker found that Mrs Brady:
- failed to comply with an undertaking dated 18 March 2024 within a reasonable amount of time, and in doing so breached paragraph 1.3 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs, RFLs and RSLs,
- allowed the firm to carry out conveyancing and post completion work after the expiry of the firm's PII on 14 October 2024, and
- on or around 20 September 2024 and 7 November 2024 accepted new instructions during and/or after the CP, and in doing so in breached rules 2.4 and 4.2 of the SRA Indemnity Insurance Rules, Paragraph 4.2 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms and Principles 2 and 7 of the SRA Principles
- failed to ensure that the firm's accounting records were being properly maintained to show all its dealings with client and office money and failed to ensure appropriate record keeping of all client money and in doing so breached rules 8.1 and 8.3 of the SRA Accounts Rules, Paragraph 4.2 SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs, RFLs and RSLs, Paragraph 9.2 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms and Principle 2 of the SRA Principles.
The above conditions are made under rule 3.1(e) of the SRA Regulatory and Disciplinary Procedure Rules, which states that on finding that an allegation is proved an authorised decision maker may impose conditions on the practising certificate of a solicitor. We are satisfied that these conditions are necessary in the public interest or for the protection of the public.