Solicitor rebuked after using client account to process funds linked to a personal matter
A senior solicitor has been rebuked by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) after using a firm’s client account inappropriately in connection with a personal financial matter.
Timothy David Lewis Eppel, a solicitor and senior partner at McFaddens LLP in London, agreed to the regulatory outcome following an investigation into his conduct. The decision was finalised on 17 October 2025 and published on 19 February 2026.
The SRA found that Mr Eppel had used the firm’s client account in a way that breached the rules governing how such accounts must be operated. Client accounts are strictly regulated and must only be used for funds relating to legal transactions or services provided by the firm.
The matter arose from instructions received in August 2017 from a client in relation to a loan facility agreement. In December 2018, funds totalling £47,480 belonging to the client were paid into the firm’s client account. On the same day, a further £4,020 was deposited into the same account from a company owned by Mr Eppel.
A total of £51,500 was subsequently paid out from the client account to an unrelated company. The payment was connected to a personal matter involving Mr Eppel and was not linked to the legal work for which the firm had been instructed.
Mr Eppel maintained that the funds in the client ledger represented fees owed to the firm. However, the SRA concluded that the payment made from the client account was not connected to any underlying legal transaction.
The regulator found that Mr Eppel had effectively used the client account as a banking facility, which is prohibited under Rule 14.5 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011.
It was accepted that the correct approach would have been to transfer any fees owed to the firm into the office account before making any payments. The SRA also noted that Mr Eppel’s own funds should not have been placed into the client account.
As part of the regulatory settlement agreement, Mr Eppel admitted the breach and cooperated fully with the investigation.
In determining the appropriate outcome, the SRA took into account that the conduct related to a single transaction in 2018 and had not been repeated. It also found that there had been no misuse of client money and no harm caused to clients or third parties.
The SRA concluded that a rebuke was proportionate to maintain professional standards and uphold public confidence in the legal profession.
The agreement brings the matter to a close, with the outcome published in the interests of transparency in regulatory proceedings.