Adams Hetherington (Adams Hetherington)
15 Laburnum Terrace, Ashington, NORTHUMBERLAND , NE63 0XX
Recognised body
073946

Decision - Agreement

Outcome: Regulatory settlement agreement

Outcome date: 16 April 2026

Published date: 5 May 2026

Firm details

No detail provided:

Outcome details

This outcome was reached by agreement.

Decision details

1. Agreed outcome

1.1 Adams Hetherington (the Firm), a recognised body authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) agrees to the following outcome to the investigation:

1. the firm is fined £6,321 under Rule 3.1 (b) of the SRA Regulatory and Disciplinary Procedure Rules (RDPRs)
2. to the publication of this agreement under Rule 9.2 of the RDPRs
3. the firm will pay the costs of the investigation of £600, under Rule 10.1 and schedule 1 of the RDPRs.

2. Summary of Facts

2.1 We carried out an investigation into the firm following a review by our AML Proactive Supervision team.    

2.2 Our investigation identified areas of concern in relation to the firm's compliance with the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017 (MLRs 2017), the SRA Principles [2019] and the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms [2019].

3. Allegations

3.1 Prior to September 2025, the firm failed to maintain records of its risk assessment under Regulation 28 of the MLRs 2017. Therefore, the firm was unable to demonstrate that the extent of the measures it had taken to satisfy the requirements of Regulation 28 were appropriate, as required by Regulation 28(16) of the MLRs 2017.

3.2 Between 26 June 2017 and 1 May 2024, the firm failed to establish and maintain policies, controls, and procedures (PCPs) to mitigate and effectively manage the risks of money laundering and terrorist financing, identified in any risk assessment (FWRA), pursuant to Regulation 19(1)(a) of the MLRs 2017, and regularly review and update them pursuant to Regulation 19(1)(b) of the MLRs 2017.

4. Admissions

4.1 The firm admits, and the SRA accepts, that by failing to comply with the MLRs 2017, that it breached:

4.2 To the extent the conduct took place 26 June 2017 and 24 November 2019:

1. Outcome 7.2 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011 - You have effective systems and controls in place to achieve and comply with all the Principles, rules and outcomes and other requirements of the Handbook, where applicable.
2. Outcome 7.5 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011 - You comply with legislation applicable to your business, including anti-money laundering and data protection legislation.
3. Principle 6 of the SRA Principles 2011 - You must behave in a way that maintains the trust the public places in you and in the provision of legal services.
4. Principle 8 of the SRA Principles 2011 - You must run your business or carry out your role in the business effectively and in accordance with proper governance and sound financial and risk management principles.

4.3 To the extent the conduct took place from 25 November 2019 onwards:

5. Paragraph 2.1(a) of the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms - You have effective governance structures, arrangements, systems and controls in place that ensure: you comply with all the SRA's regulatory arrangements, as well as with other regulatory and legislative requirements, which apply to you.
6. Paragraph 3.1 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms - You keep up to date with and follow the law and regulation governing the way you work.
7. Principle 2 of the SRA Principles - You act in a way that upholds public trust and confidence in the solicitors' profession and in legal services provided by authorised persons.

5. Why a fine is an appropriate outcome

5.1 The SRA's Enforcement Strategy sets out its approach to the use of its enforcement powers where there has been a failure to meet its standards or requirements.

5.2 When considering the appropriate sanctions and controls in this matter, the SRA has taken into account the admissions made by the firm and the following mitigation:

1. there is no evidence of harm to consumers, or third parties, and our view is that the risk of repetition is low
2. the firm brought itself into compliance by putting in place compliant PCPs and CMRAs. The firm have trained fee earners on how to complete CMRAs and are in the process of completing a CMRA for every active matter in scope of the MLRs 2017.
3. the firm has cooperated with the SRA's AML Proactive Supervision and AML Investigations teams.

5.3 The SRA considers that a fine is the appropriate outcome because:

1. The conduct showed a disregard for statutory and regulatory obligations and had the potential to cause harm, by facilitating dubious transactions that could have led to money laundering (and/or terrorist financing). The AML control failings identified as part of this investigation are necessary requirements to help mitigate against these risks.
2. It was incumbent on the firm to meet the requirements set out in the MLRs 2017. The firm failed to do so. The public would expect a firm of solicitors to comply with its legal and regulatory obligations, to protect against these risks as a minimum. 
3. The agreed outcome is a proportionate outcome in the public interest because it creates a credible deterrent to others and the issuing of such a sanction signifies the risk to the public, and the legal sector, that arises when solicitors do not comply with anti-money laundering legislation and their professional regulatory rules. 

5.4 Rule 4.1 of the Regulatory and Disciplinary Procedure Rules states that a financial penalty may be appropriate to maintain professional standards and uphold public confidence in the solicitors' profession and in legal services provided by authorised persons. There is nothing within this Agreement which conflicts with Rule 4.1 of the Regulatory and Disciplinary Rules and on that basis, a financial penalty is appropriate.

6. Amount of the fine

6.1 The amount of the fine has been calculated in line with the SRA's published guidance on its approach to setting an appropriate financial penalty.

6.2 Having regard to the Guidance, the SRA and the firm agree that the nature of the misconduct was more serious (score of three). This is because the firm should have taken more care to ensure it fully understood its obligations to record CMRAs and have an updated PCPs document in place.

6.3 While the firm states that fee earners were considering risk when carrying out instructions, these were not recorded and there is nothing to demonstrate what was considered for each client and matter. Such risks were not recorded until September 2025, and as such, the misconduct spanned over seven years.

6.4 Further, the firm did not have a PCPs document pursuant to regulation 19 of the MLRs 2017 until 1 May 2024. The misconduct therefore spanned in excess of six years.

6.5 The firm undertakes significant amounts of in-scope work and has failed to meet these requirements of the MLRs 2017 for six/seven years.

6.6 The SRA considers, and the firm agrees, that the harm or risk of harm is assessed as being moderate (score of four). Although there was no loss to clients, the firm failed to have two important AML controls in place.

6.7 Not recording risk at file level and not having up to date AML PCPs put the firm at risk of being used to launder money. This is especially serious considering the firm have always conducted a high volume of conveyancing transactions, which is considered to be high risk.

6.8 The nature and impact scores add up to seven. This places the penalty in 'Band C', as directed by the guidance.

6.9 The SRA and the firm agree that a basic penalty towards the lower end of the bracket be appropriate.

6.10 Based on the evidence the firm has provided of its annual domestic turnover for the most recent tax year; this results in a basic penalty of £7,023

6.11 The SRA considers that the basic penalty should be reduced to £6,321. This reduction reflects the mitigation set out in paragraph 5.2 above.

6.12 The firm does not appear to have made any financial gain or received any other benefit as a result of its conduct. Therefore, no adjustment is necessary, and the financial penalty is £6,321.

7. Publication

7.1 Rule 9.2 of the SRA Regulatory and Disciplinary Procedure Rules states that any decision under Rule 3.1 or 3.2, including a Financial Penalty, shall be published unless the particular circumstances outweigh the public interest in publication.

7.2 The SRA considers it appropriate that this agreement is published as there are no circumstances that outweigh the public interest in publication, and it is in the interest of transparency in the regulatory and disciplinary process.

8. Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement

8.1 The firm agrees that it will not deny the admissions made in this agreement or act in any way which is inconsistent with it.

8.2 If the firm denies the admissions, or acts in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement, the conduct which is subject to this agreement may be considered further by the SRA. That may result in a disciplinary outcome or a referral to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal on the original facts and allegations.

8.3 Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement may also constitute a separate breach of principles 2 and 5 of the Principles and paragraph 3.2 of the Code of Conduct for Firms.

8. Costs

9.1 The firm agrees to pay the costs of the SRA's investigation in the sum of £600.

Decision - Fined

Outcome: Fine

Outcome date: 15 November 2023

Published date: 9 January 2024

Firm details

No detail provided:

Outcome details

This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

Decision details

The SRA Transparency Rules came into effect on 6 December 2018. They require all firms authorised and regulated by the SRA to display specified information on their websites if they provide certain types of legal services. The purpose of the Transparency Rules is to ensure people have accurate and relevant information about a solicitor or firm when they are considering purchasing legal services. They are intended to help members of the public and small businesses make informed choices, improving competition in the legal market.

As of 10 July 2023:

• the firm failed to publish mandatory details about its costs and/or services in breach of rule 1.5 of the Transparency Rules,
• the firm failed to publish mandatory details about its complaints procedure in breach of rule 2.1 of the Transparency Rules,

The firm was ordered to pay a fixed financial penalty of £750 pursuant to rules 3.1(h) and 11.3 of the Regulatory and Disciplinary Procedure Rules. The firm was also ordered to pay investigation costs of £150.