Colp & Cofa

When a conveyancing firm acts for joint owners, each client’s instructions, interests and entitlement to money require protection. A longstanding relationship with one owner cannot supply the other owner’s authority.

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal’s decision concerning Angela Stanton provides a serious example of what can happen when those distinctions are lost.

For COLPs, COFAs and conveyancing supervisors, the practical review question is straightforward: could someone examining the file establish whose instructions authorised each material decision and payment?

What did the tribunal decide?

In SRA v Angela Stanton, case 12943-2026, the tribunal considered an agreed outcome on the papers on 16 September 2026. Stanton admitted the allegations in full.

The allegations concerned two conveyancing matters involving properties jointly owned by a property developer, identified as Client B, and two other clients respectively. Stanton had previously acted for Client B in multiple transactions.

In the first matter, involving a legal charge, the admitted failures included inadequate customer due diligence, failure to obtain the other owner’s authority or consent, failure to identify a person benefiting from the loan and failure to protect money due to that client.

In the second matter, concerning a sale and subsequent events, the admitted misconduct included preferring Client B’s interests, acting despite a conflict or significant risk of conflict, giving an undertaking and transferring proceeds for Client B’s benefit without the other client’s consent, and providing misleading financial information.

The tribunal found dishonesty in the dealings with the second client and lack of integrity in both matters. It ordered that Stanton be struck off and pay £18,000 in costs.

The controls discussed below are practical recommendations prompted by the decision. They are not additional findings about the firm’s systems.

1. Identify every client and the source of their instructions

A familiar client may introduce the transaction, provide documents and deal with most correspondence. That does not establish authority to instruct on another client’s behalf.

The file should identify who the firm acts for, the scope of each retainer and how instructions will be obtained from each client.

Where someone communicates for another client, establish and record the authority relied on. If circumstances cast doubt on whether instructions reflect the client’s wishes, resolve that concern before acting.

Useful review questions include:

• Has each client’s identity and role been established?
• Has each client understood whom the firm represents?
• Who authorised the charge, undertaking or proposed payment?
• Does the authority cover this particular step?
• Has anyone’s silence been treated as agreement?

Identity verification and authority answer different questions. Establishing who someone is does not establish their agreement to a particular transaction.

2. Reassess conflicts when the transaction changes

An opening conflict search is only one part of the assessment. Clients who initially appear aligned may later disagree about borrowing, ownership, liabilities or the distribution of proceeds.

The SRA Code of Conduct addresses instructions, conflicts, confidentiality and safeguarding client money. Any reliance on an exception to the client-conflict prohibition requires the applicable conditions to be met. Consent alone does not resolve every conflict.

Review points should include:

• A request to pay one owner’s proceeds towards another person’s liability.
• Different accounts of what the clients have agreed.
• A request to withhold material information from another joint client.
• A disagreement about beneficial ownership or entitlement to proceeds.
• A change in the relationship between the clients.

Where continued joint representation is in question, refer the matter to the appropriate supervisor or compliance officer before taking a step that could prejudice a client.

About Conveyancing’s guide to creating a CQS Conflict Handling Policy provides related background for accredited practices.

3. Understand who benefits from the borrowing or payment

A transaction can involve several people whose roles differ: registered owners, borrowers, lenders, recipients of funds and people whose debts will be discharged.

Record those roles clearly. Ask whether the stated purpose of the transaction matches the proposed movement of money and the instructions received.

If one client assumes a liability while someone else receives the benefit, establish what advice and authority are required. Consider whether the arrangement raises a conflict or calls for separate advice.

In a review, an unexplained third-party benefit should lead to further questions rather than being accepted because the principal contact is well known to the firm.

4. Connect every payment with entitlement and authority

A client ledger records movement of money. The file should also explain why the payment was authorised.

Before releasing joint sale proceeds, the reviewer should be able to establish:

• Who is entitled to the money being paid.
• The basis of any agreed allocation between clients.
• Which instructions support the proposed distribution.
• Whether payment to a third party is properly authorised.
• Whether a disagreement or unresolved conflict prevents payment.

A signature on a transfer should not be treated as blanket authority for every later distribution of the proceeds.

Accounts staff also need an escalation route where the payment request does not match the supporting documents. A senior fee earner’s involvement should not remove that route.

5. Check authority before giving an undertaking

An undertaking can commit the firm to an action affecting client money. The review should take place before it is given.

Establish the proposed terms, the relevant client authority, the firm’s ability to perform and whether the undertaking affects another client’s interests or entitlement.

Record approval and responsibility for performance. If the undertaking depends on another person’s cooperation, assess that dependency explicitly.

6. Keep financial explanations accurate and traceable

Clients should receive an accurate account of what happened to their money. Statements should reconcile with the ledger and supporting payment records.

If a statement changes, retain the earlier version and explain the correction. A revised document should not obscure an unauthorised payment, an unresolved discrepancy or an earlier inaccurate explanation.

Where a possible error or misconduct is identified, preserve the records and escalate promptly. Consider the applicable duties concerning client notification, remediation and regulatory reporting.

What should COLPs and COFAs test together?

This is a useful subject for a joint file-review exercise. The legal team may hold the instructions, while the accounts team holds the payment evidence. Review both together.

Select a sample involving joint owners, third-party payments or an established client introducing another party. Ask an independent reviewer to trace:

• Who the clients were.
• How authority was obtained.
• When conflicts were considered again.
• Who benefited from the transaction.
• Why each material payment was made.
• What each client was told.

Record gaps, allocate corrective action and check completion. The same questions should be applied to matters handled by senior lawyers and longstanding client contacts.

The related CQS Risk Management Policy review guide considers how responsibilities and escalation arrangements can be translated into everyday file handling.

Where does AML fit?

The judgment expressly identifies inadequate customer due diligence in the first matter. The recorded findings were breaches of professional conduct requirements and Principles; they should not be presented as a tribunal finding of a breach of the Money Laundering Regulations.

Separately, firms undertaking regulated work should assess whether their AML controls adequately address the parties, transaction purpose, beneficial ownership and relevant financial arrangements.

Where a firm is reviewing those controls, Lexsure’s Independent AML Audit service offers a focused assessment of AML procedures and their implementation. Its scope is distinct from a review of every conflict, authority or client-money issue discussed here.

Review the procedure and the decisions it produces

The misconduct in this case included deliberate dishonesty. A template cannot prevent someone from choosing to mislead a client.

Clear procedures, effective challenge and accessible escalation can nevertheless help firms identify unexplained instructions, conflicting interests and unsupported payments earlier.

The review question is whether another competent person can follow the evidence and understand how each client’s interests were protected.

Case reference: SRA v Angela Stanton, Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, 12943-2026. Agreed outcome considered on the papers on 16 September 2026; judgment dated 23 September 2026. This article distinguishes the recorded findings from suggested practice improvements.