Former firm owner rebuked over insurance breaches, client records and undertaking delays
A solicitor has been rebuked by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) after findings that her firm continued certain legal work after professional indemnity insurance had expired and failed to maintain proper accounting records. The regulator’s decision concerns Siobu Brady, who was the sole manager and owner of Raegal Limited, a regulated law firm based in London. The firm was closed by SRA intervention on 26 August 2025.
The SRA published its decision on 8 June 2026 following regulatory findings relating to the firm’s operations during 2024. According to the regulator, Brady failed to comply with an undertaking dated 18 March 2024 within a reasonable period of time.
The SRA also found that Raegal Limited’s final professional indemnity insurance policy expired on 16 July 2024. The firm subsequently entered the extended policy period on 17 July 2024 and the cessation period on 16 August 2024.
Under the SRA’s indemnity insurance requirements, firms in the cessation period should not accept new instructions. After the cessation period expired on 14 October 2024, firms without professional indemnity insurance should not continue legal practice.
The regulator found that Brady allowed the firm to carry out conveyancing and post-completion work after 14 October 2024 when no qualifying professional indemnity insurance was in place. The SRA also found that the firm accepted new instructions during and/or after the cessation period on or around 20 September 2024 and 7 November 2024.
In addition, the regulator concluded that Brady failed to ensure the firm’s accounting records were properly maintained to show all dealings with client and office money and failed to ensure appropriate record keeping relating to client funds.
The SRA said these actions breached provisions of the SRA Accounts Rules, the SRA Code of Conduct and the SRA Principles. In determining sanctions, the regulator noted that Brady was the sole manager and owner of the firm and therefore had direct responsibility for its compliance obligations.
The SRA stated that solicitors practising without appropriate professional indemnity insurance can pose a significant risk to client interests because protections may not be available if problems arise. The regulator also noted that the breaches continued for longer than they should have done and concluded that a public sanction was necessary in the public interest.
However, the SRA said there was no evidence of lasting harm to clients or third parties, no indication that the conduct was pre-planned, and no evidence of financial gain. The regulator also noted that Brady had cooperated with the investigation and that there were no allegations of dishonesty or lack of integrity. The SRA concluded that a written rebuke was a proportionate outcome and ordered Brady to pay investigation costs of £1,350.