Senior solicitor rebuked after client funds were used to make 21 payments totalling £37,640 in 2023
On 5 September 2025 the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) issued a formal rebuke to solicitor Christopher Paul Topping (SRA number 139743) after finding that he caused or allowed his firm’s client account to be used as a banking facility. The decision, reached by SRA determination, relates to transactions carried out between 25 January 2023 and 22 March 2023 and was published on 10 October 2025.
At the time of the events Mr Topping was employed by Jackson Lees Group Ltd, whose registered office for the matter is recorded as 3rd Floor Walker House, Exchange Flags, Liverpool L2 3YL (Firm ID 567726). The SRA concluded that Mr Topping’s conduct breached Rule 3.3 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2019 and Principle 2 of the SRA Principles 2019 by allowing client funds to be used for payments unconnected to the legal services provided.
The matter arose after Mr Topping acted for a client who had brought a successful claim against the Home Office for unlawful detention; damages were awarded in January 2023. The client was an asylum seeker with no leave to remain in the UK, serving a lengthy prison sentence. The SRA record notes that the client had a long history of mental health difficulties, including a diagnosis of bipolar affective disorder and multiple detentions under the Mental Health Act, facts of which Mr Topping was aware.
Embed from Getty Images
Because the client lacked a UK bank account and, on account of his immigration and prisoner status, the firm could not open a personal injury trust on his behalf, the damages remained on Jackson Lees’ client bank account. Between 25 January 2023 and 22 March 2023 the client, by telephone, gave instructions to Mr Topping and other firm staff to make 21 separate payments from those damages. The payments, which totalled £37,640, were made to six individuals; all but one recipient — the client’s mother — were serving prisoners or persons connected with serving prisoners.
Mr Topping authorised his firm’s finance team to execute the payments from the client account. The client later reported to the police that he had been coerced into making the transfers. The SRA found that by permitting such transactions Mr Topping effectively allowed the client account to be used as a banking facility, a use the accounts rules prohibit when there is no proper connection to the legal services provided.
In deciding the sanction the SRA took account of aggravating factors: Mr Topping is an experienced solicitor who had direct responsibility for the matter and he permitted transactions that had no proper link to the legal matter. The regulator also noted that Mr Topping ignored or failed to heed previous warnings from the SRA and decisions from the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal concerning similar issues, which underlined the seriousness of his breaches of the accounts rules and his regulatory obligations.
Despite those aggravating considerations, the SRA concluded that a rebuke, accompanied by an order to pay costs of £600, was a proportionate sanction. The regulator described the conduct as serious but considered the circumstances unusual and apparently isolated, indicating a low risk of repetition. For that reason a more severe sanction, such as suspension or striking off, was not imposed.
The SRA’s published outcome records the need for some public sanction to maintain standards and to acknowledge the breach of regulatory requirements, while stopping short of more punitive measures given the specific facts of the case.