Jones Whyte Law Limited
Fyfe Chambers, 105 West George Street, Glasgow, Scotland , G2 1PB
Recognised body
8001477

Decision - Sanction

Outcome: Rebuke

Outcome date: 26 June 2025

Published date: 13 August 2025

Firm details

No detail provided:

Outcome details

This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

Decision details

Jones Whyte Law Limited, located at Fyfe Chambers, 105 West George Street, Glasgow, G2 1PB, Scotland (the firm), is a recognised body. We have issued the firm with a written rebuke for breaches of the SRA Accounts Rules and ordered the firm to pay costs of £1,350.

Reasons/basis

Facts of the misconduct

The firm, then called Jones Whyte LLP, agreed to purchase the goodwill, business and certain assets of WW & J McClure Limited when it went into administration in April 2021, resulting in the transfer of a substantial number of files and several million pounds of client money.

On 28 June 2023, the SRA commenced a forensic investigation at the firm. The forensic investigation officer produced a report on 4 December 2023, which identified a number of breaches of the SRA Accounts Rules.

It was found that between 4 May 2021 and 23 November 2023:

• The firm failed to maintain books of account and failed to properly carry out account reconciliations. In doing so, the firm breached Rules 8.1 and 8.3 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2019, Paragraph 2.2 of the Code of Conduct for Firms 2019, and Principle 2 of the SRA Principles 2019.
• The firm failed to obtain and submit annual Accountants Reports to the SRA. In doing so, the firm breached Rule 12.1 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2019, Paragraph 2.2 of the Code of Conduct for Firms 2019, and Principle 2 of the SRA Principles 2019.
• The firm failed to hold client accounts for England and Wales client matters, in England and Wales. In doing so, the firm breached Rule 3.1 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2019 and Principle 2 of the SRA Principles 2019.

Other information

Why a written rebuke is an appropriate outcome

It was decided that a written rebuke was an appropriate and proportionate sanction. The firm have also been ordered to pay costs of £1,350.

This was because the firm’s conduct was serious by reference to the following factors in the SRA Enforcement Strategy:

• The findings relate to the firm’s management of client money. The forensic investigation identified a cash surplus of over £400,000 in the client bank account due to unallocated interest over a significant period of time.
• The breaches continued for longer than was reasonable and had the potential to diminish trust and confidence in the provision of legal services.
• Some public sanction was required to protect the public interest.

A more serious sanction was not considered to be proportionate by reference to the following factors in the Enforcement Strategy:

• The firm had co-operated with the SRA investigation and admitted its misconduct.
• There was no evidence that harm had actually materialised.
• The risk of repetition was low. The firm had taken steps to bring itself into compliance with the rules.