James Legal Limited agrees to pay a financial penalty following an SRA AML investigation
A Hull-based law firm has agreed to pay a financial penalty after the Solicitors Regulation Authority identified failures in its anti-money laundering controls.
James Legal Limited, a licensed body authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, entered into a regulatory settlement agreement following an investigation by the regulator’s Anti-Money Laundering Proactive Supervision team. The agreement was dated 20 January 2026 and published on 30 January 2026.
The firm, which operates from Planet House on Hedon Road in Hull, has agreed to pay a financial penalty of £8,503, as well as £600 towards the SRA’s investigation costs. The outcome was reached by agreement between the firm and the regulator.
The investigation arose from a desk-based review and focused on the firm’s compliance with the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017. The SRA also assessed compliance with the SRA Principles 2019 and the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms 2019.
According to the agreed outcome, between 21 February 2025 and 11 August 2025, James Legal Limited failed to establish and maintain fully compliant policies, controls and procedures designed to mitigate the risks of money laundering and terrorist financing. These shortcomings are related to Regulation 19 of the 2017 regulations, which requires firms to maintain and regularly update such measures based on their firm-wide risk assessment.
In February 2025, the firm was asked to provide its anti-money laundering documentation as part of a pre-questionnaire process. While documents were submitted, the SRA found that the firm’s policies did not contain several mandatory elements required under the regulations. The regulator confirmed that revised and compliant documentation was later provided in August 2025.
The firm admitted that its failures amounted to breaches of Principle 2 of the SRA Principles, which requires solicitors to uphold public trust and confidence, as well as paragraphs 2.1(a) and 3.1 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms, relating to governance arrangements and compliance with legal and regulatory obligations.
In deciding that a fine was the appropriate sanction, the SRA noted that the firm’s conduct showed a disregard for statutory requirements and had the potential to facilitate money laundering or terrorist financing. However, it also confirmed that there was no evidence of actual harm to clients or third parties, and that the firm did not financially benefit from the misconduct.
The regulator acknowledged the firm’s cooperation with the investigation, its remediation of the identified issues, and the low risk of repetition. The penalty was calculated in line with the SRA’s published guidance and reflected a discount for mitigating factors.
Under statutory requirements, the decision will remain published as part of the public register of licensed bodies.