SRA imposes interim restrictions on Antony Mao’s practice to protect public interest
The Solicitors Regulation Authority has imposed practice restrictions on Antony John Mao, a solicitor whose practising certificate for 2024/2025 will now carry a series of strict conditions. The decision, made on 5 September 2025 and published on 14 October 2025, limits the scope of Mr Mao’s professional activities in what the SRA described as a necessary measure to protect the public and uphold confidence in the legal profession.
Mr Mao, who was admitted as a solicitor in England and Wales under registration number 021331, was formerly employed at Sherrards Solicitors LLP, based at First Floor, 4 Beaconsfield Road, St Albans (firm ID 533210). At the time of publication of the SRA decision, he was working for Ellisons Legal LLP, located at The Bath House, Le Cateau Road, Colchester.
Under the SRA’s order, Mr Mao is prohibited from acting as a manager or owner of any authorised body, and he may not practise on his own account under regulation 10.2(a) or (b) of the SRA Authorisation of Individuals Regulations. The regulator has also ruled that he must not act as a Compliance Officer for Legal Practice (COLP) or Compliance Officer for Finance and Administration (COFA) for any authorised body. In addition, he is barred from holding the roles of Money Laundering Compliance Officer (MLCO) or Money Laundering Reporting Officer (MLRO).
Embed from Getty Images
Further restrictions prevent Mr Mao from holding or receiving client money, acting as a signatory to any client or office account, or authorising any transfer from those accounts. The SRA’s conditions mean he can continue to practise as a solicitor but only within an approved, supervised employment setting.
The decision was made under rule 3.2 of the SRA Regulatory and Disciplinary Procedure Rules, which allows the regulator to impose interim conditions at any stage of an investigation if it considers them necessary in the public interest or for the protection of clients. These restrictions do not in themselves amount to a disciplinary finding but act as a precautionary measure pending the outcome of any final decision by the SRA or the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT).
The SRA explained that such interim conditions are designed to manage potential risks while investigations are ongoing, without pre-judging the final outcome. They ensure that solicitors under investigation can continue to work within limits that safeguard the public, client funds, and the reputation of the profession.
According to the published decision, the SRA was satisfied that imposing the restrictions on Mr Mao’s practising certificate was both reasonable and proportionate, having regard to the public interest and the regulatory objectives set out in the Legal Services Act 2007. The regulator emphasised that these measures serve to preserve confidence in the profession while ensuring solicitors continue to meet high standards of integrity, competence and accountability.
Such conditions typically remain in force until the regulator removes them following a review, or until any connected disciplinary process is concluded. In practice, this means that while Mr Mao remains entitled to work as a solicitor, he cannot occupy senior or compliance-related roles that involve handling client money or making executive decisions about firm governance or regulatory compliance.
The SRA did not publish further details of the underlying circumstances that prompted the restrictions. The decision appears as a “control of practice” entry on the SRA’s regulatory decisions register, classified under “condition” outcomes.
The conditions imposed on Mr Mao illustrate the SRA’s continuing use of its interim powers to address potential risks quickly while maintaining due process. Similar orders are typically imposed when the regulator identifies potential breaches or concerns about a solicitor’s professional conduct or competence but requires additional time to investigate fully before making a final determination.