Partner Mark Shepherd fined £14,168 after admitting serious client account failures at DWF
Partner Mark Andrew Shepherd at DWF Law LLP has been fined £14,168 and ordered to pay £19,000 in costs following an agreed outcome with the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA). The Tribunal found that between October 2019 and November 2020, Shepherd approved payments from the firm’s client account without confirming that contract conditions had been met or funds properly due to clients.
Shepherd admitted breaches spanning both the earlier SRA Principles 2011 and current Principle 2, the SRA Code of Conduct 2019, and the SRA Accounts Rules. Acting as partner in the London real estate team, he acknowledged his responsibility for final sign‑off and his failure to exercise sufficient scrutiny, particularly given the large sums involved.
The Tribunal received a self‑report from the firm, which disclosed that DWF had incorrectly released buyers’ instalment and deposit monies related to an off‑plan development (“Development C”) before satisfying contractual pre‑conditions. Contracts specified that deposit warranty insurance—a condition for release—had not yet been in place. Despite this, the firm released funds to the special purpose vehicle (“SPV1”) managing the development.
Embed from Getty ImagesShepherd’s conduct covered two regimes: payments authorised before November 2019 breached Principles 6 and 10 of the 2011 Principles and Rule 20.1(a) of the 2011 Accounts Rules; later payments breached Principle 2, Paragraph 4.2 of the 2019 Code, and Rules 5.1(a) and 5.2 of the 2019 Accounts Rules.
Because the Respondent admitted all allegations, the case proceeded under an Agreed Outcome, lodged shortly before the hearing. Although submitted late, the Tribunal granted leave to proceed with it, explaining that deadlines exist to allow alternative Tribunal members to handle such jointly proposed resolutions.
Shepherd accepted full responsibility and made appropriate admissions. Tribunal commentary judged that as a partner, he bore ultimate accountability and should have taken greater care. However, his self‑reporting and early acceptance of the allegations were mitigating factors. The proposed sanction was deemed consistent with the Tribunal’s Guidance Note on Sanctions.
Given the culpability and potential harm from mishandling significant client funds, the Tribunal determined a fine was necessary to uphold public confidence and maintain professional standards. They agreed the agreed fine amount of £14,168—calculated in accordance with guidance—was both reasonable and proportionate.
Shepherd will also contribute £19,000 in costs, as agreed by both parties. The Tribunal reviewed and approved this sum as appropriate.
The formal order, dated 23 May 2025, requires Shepherd to pay the fine to His Majesty the King and contribute the specified costs. The Tribunal concluded that the agreed outcome properly reflects both the seriousness of permitting improper release of client monies and the mitigating context of Shepherd’s cooperation.
Although the conduct spanned more than a year and involved serious procedural failings, it represented a single area of misconduct in an otherwise unblemished career. Shepherd remains in post within DWF’s London real estate team, holding an unconditional practising certificate.
This case highlights that solicitors, especially partners, must rigorously verify contractual conditions before approving payments from client accounts. The Tribunal’s firm but measured sanction reinforces that accountability and diligence are ePartner Mark Andrew Shepherd at DWF Law LLP has been fined £14,168 and ordered to pay £19,000 in costs following an agreed outcome with the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA). The Tribunal found that between October 2019 and November 2020, Shepherd approved payments from the firm’s client account without confirming that contract conditions had been met or funds properly due to clients.
Shepherd admitted breaches spanning both the earlier SRA Principles 2011 and current Principle 2, the SRA Code of Conduct 2019, and the SRA Accounts Rules. Acting as partner in the London real estate team, he acknowledged his responsibility for final sign‑off and his failure to exercise sufficient scrutiny, particularly given the large sums involved.
The Tribunal received a self‑report from the firm, which disclosed that DWF had incorrectly released buyers’ instalment and deposit monies related to an off‑plan development (“Development C”) before satisfying contractual pre‑conditions. Contracts specified that deposit warranty insurance—a condition for release—had not yet been in place. Despite this, the firm released funds to the special purpose vehicle (“SPV1”) managing the development.
Shepherd’s conduct covered two regimes: payments authorised before November 2019 breached Principles 6 and 10 of the 2011 Principles and Rule 20.1(a) of the 2011 Accounts Rules; later payments breached Principle 2, Paragraph 4.2 of the 2019 Code, and Rules 5.1(a) and 5.2 of the 2019 Accounts Rules.
Because the Respondent admitted all allegations, the case proceeded under an Agreed Outcome, lodged shortly before the hearing. Although submitted late, the Tribunal granted leave to proceed with it, explaining that deadlines exist to allow alternative Tribunal members to handle such jointly proposed resolutions.
Shepherd accepted full responsibility and made appropriate admissions. Tribunal commentary judged that as a partner, he bore ultimate accountability and should have taken greater care. However, his self‑reporting and early acceptance of the allegations were mitigating factors. The proposed sanction was deemed consistent with the Tribunal’s Guidance Note on Sanctions.
Given the culpability and potential harm from mishandling significant client funds, the Tribunal determined a fine was necessary to uphold public confidence and maintain professional standards. They agreed the agreed fine amount of £14,168—calculated in accordance with guidance—was both reasonable and proportionate.
Shepherd will also contribute £19,000 in costs, as agreed by both parties. The Tribunal reviewed and approved this sum as appropriate.
The formal order, dated 23 May 2025, requires Shepherd to pay the fine to His Majesty the King and contribute the specified costs. The Tribunal concluded that the agreed outcome properly reflects both the seriousness of permitting improper release of client monies and the mitigating context of Shepherd’s cooperation.
Although the conduct spanned more than a year and involved serious procedural failings, it represented a single area of misconduct in an otherwise unblemished career. Shepherd remains in post within DWF’s London real estate team, holding an unconditional practising certificate.
This case highlights that solicitors, especially partners, must rigorously verify contractual conditions before approving payments from client accounts. The Tribunal’s firm but measured sanction reinforces that accountability and diligence are essential to preserving trust in the legal profession.ssential to preserving trust in the legal profession.
