SRA says solicitor breached rules, mishandled funds, and made a false compliance declaration
Amir Nazir Butt, a practising solicitor, has been fined following a damning Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) investigation into serious breaches involving client money, record-keeping, and regulatory compliance.
The investigation centred on multiple allegations, including failures to meet obligations under the Solicitors Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs 2019, breaches of the Solicitors Accounts Rules 2011, and breaches of both the SRA Principles 2011 and SRA Principles 2019.
The SRA’s findings revealed that Mr Butt failed to comply with anti-money laundering (AML) regulations, maintain accurate records, and properly handle client residual balances—funds left in client accounts after a matter has been concluded. Such funds must be managed strictly in accordance with the SRA’s rules, either by returning them to the client or transferring them appropriately after proper authorisation.
Embed from Getty ImagesAccording to the SRA, the failures extended beyond administrative errors. It was further alleged that Mr Butt made a false declaration to the regulator regarding his compliance with key professional obligations. The SRA considered this to demonstrate a lack of integrity, a breach viewed as particularly serious because integrity is at the core of public trust in solicitors.
Misappropriation of client account funds is one of the most severe allegations a solicitor can face. The Solicitors Accounts Rules exist to safeguard client money and ensure absolute transparency in legal practice finances. Even the perception of mishandling can cause irreparable damage to a firm’s reputation, as well as to public confidence in the profession as a whole.
The SRA’s case painted a picture of systemic failings in Mr Butt’s management of client funds, compounded by inaccurate reporting to the regulator. The investigation concluded that his actions breached multiple principles, including acting with integrity, maintaining public trust, and upholding proper standards of service and governance.
The Tribunal found the allegations proved on the evidence and concluded that a financial penalty was the appropriate sanction. While the exact fine amount was not detailed in the summary, the ruling confirms that the penalty was imposed alongside a formal disciplinary finding.
The decision sends a strong warning to the profession. The SRA has consistently emphasised that handling client money demands rigorous compliance with accounting rules and AML regulations. Solicitors are also reminded that providing false or misleading information to the regulator will be treated as a serious integrity breach, potentially leading to more severe sanctions such as suspension or being struck off the roll.
Although the Tribunal did not impose a suspension in this case, the fine and the public disciplinary record will have lasting consequences for Mr Butt’s professional standing. His regulatory history will be taken into account in any future dealings with the SRA, including practising certificate renewals.
For clients, the case is a reminder of why stringent oversight exists in the legal sector. For solicitors, it underlines the message that even administrative oversights—if combined with integrity concerns—can escalate into serious professional misconduct proceedings.
With the penalty now imposed, the case is formally closed. But the outcome reinforces the SRA’s zero-tolerance approach to breaches involving client money and integrity, leaving no doubt that any solicitor failing to meet these fundamental duties will face significant regulatory action.
