Clyde & Co fined £500,000 and partner Edward Mills-Webb £11,900 over AML failures

SRA tribunal fines Clyde & Co £500,000 and Edward Mills-Webb £11,900 over compliance failings.

Clyde & Co LLP has been fined £500,000 and ordered to pay more than £128,000 in costs after the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found serious anti-money laundering failings at the international law firm. One of its partners, Edward Henry Mills-Webb, was also personally fined £11,900 and told to contribute almost £55,000 towards costs.

The case was brought by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) and centred on a series of transactions between 2014 and 2019 where the firm failed to conduct proper checks on clients and their principals. The tribunal found that Clyde & Co had not adequately applied customer due diligence, failed to monitor relationships, neglected to carry out enhanced checks when required, and continued transactions that should have been halted.

In a statement of agreed facts and admissions, the firm acknowledged failings across 14 transactions, including inadequate due diligence on “Company A” and its principals. Mills-Webb, the partner with responsibility for the client relationship, admitted that he materially contributed to those shortcomings. Both accepted that their conduct breached SRA Principles 6, 7 and 8, and failed to achieve required outcomes under the Code of Conduct 2011.

The tribunal said the firm’s culpability was high, stressing that as a large, long-established international practice, Clyde & Co had the resources and experience to ensure full compliance but did not put in place sufficiently robust systems. The failings were aggravated by repetition and missed opportunities to correct errors. The panel also noted that this was not the first time the firm had been sanctioned for similar issues, recalling a £50,000 fine in 2017 for breaches of the Money Laundering Regulations 2007.

While there was no evidence that money laundering actually occurred, the tribunal said the failures created a significant risk and undermined public confidence in the profession. It added that global firms shoulder a greater responsibility to uphold the reputation of the legal sector.

Mitigating factors included the firm’s cooperation with the investigation, improvements to internal systems, and evidence of genuine insight. Clyde & Co has since overhauled its client onboarding process, strengthened file-opening checks, introduced additional oversight from its risk and compliance teams, and appointed a money laundering officer.

For Mills-Webb, the tribunal accepted that his failings stemmed from carelessness rather than intent. He apologised for his misconduct, admitted responsibility early, and provided evidence of training and remedial steps. The tribunal noted that while experienced, he was not a regulatory specialist and had misunderstood the level of checks required. His fine was set at £11,900, with an additional order to pay £54,941.77 in costs.

Clyde & Co’s £500,000 fine is among the largest imposed on a UK law firm by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, reflecting both the seriousness of the failings and the aggravating factor of previous disciplinary history. The firm was also ordered to pay £128,197.48 in costs to the SRA.

The tribunal emphasised that compliance with anti-money laundering regulations is an essential duty for solicitors and warned that failures, even absent actual laundering, would continue to attract severe penalties.