Did SRA Fail to Address Solicitor’s Fraudulent Billing Practices against whistleblowers?
Regulatory Authority surprisingly seems to Deny Investigation Despite Clear Denial of Legal Responsibilities and Breach of SRA Regulations
The UK’s Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has faced criticism over its handling of a complaint involving serious allegations of fraudulent billing practices at the prominent law firm DWF Law LLP. The issues concern legal services provided to Professor Stuart Croft, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Warwick, and the claimed costs—£75,000—that the firm asserts it incurred.
The total of £75,000 is based on a cost statement prepared by the lead solicitor, Mr. Tim Smith, who was then with BLM/Clyde & Co. He approved it as a fair and accurate reflection of the legal service costs. Professor Stuart Croft, as Vice Chancellor of the University of Warwick, would have also seen the bill for the £75,000 and approved such significant legal expenditures for a simple strikeout hearing; per UK law, he would have received a receipt for the sum.
1. Introduction
DWF is attempting to recover the £75,000 from whistleblower Professor Kostakopoulou. However, it has failed to provide any proof that such a large amount was incurred on preparing for a strikeout hearing lasting no more than eight hours, as evidenced by bills and receipts. Despite multiple requests, neither Professor Stuart Croft nor DWF has been able to supply this documentation.
2. The story
On 1 May 2025, Sir David Normington, the Chair of the University of Warwick Council and pro-chancellor, was asked to convene an emergency meeting of the university’s Council to inform all members about DWF’s fraudulent billing practices and to examine Professor Stuart Croft’s direct involvement and oversight of this issue. However, Sir Normington has so far remained silent on such weighty matters. This situation raises valid questions regarding the regulator’s commitment to maintaining appropriate professional standards.
In March 2025, a complaint was filed with the SRA detailing allegations against DWF Law LLP’s fraudulent billing practices (previously reported by this media in the London High Court case of December 2024 and January 2025, presided over by Mr Justice Charles Bourne (https://new-economy.gr/2025/03/05/high-court-judge-judgment-cover-up/https://neweconomy.gr/2025/02/05/whistleblower-kostakopoulou-libel/ The UK’s Ministry of Justice has recordings that can validate the accuracy of this reporting).
3. Details
Despite the conflicting evidence presented before Justice Bourne on such matters by Mr Richard Munden, counsel for the respondents, and Ms Evie Elsbury of DWF, he omitted all such evidence from his judgment of 18 February 2025, including what is described as systematic irregularities that breach key SRA regulations, such as:
- Double-billing for identical services (solicitor listed TWICE in every statement as Grade C (higher rate) and D trainee rate). The same £170 hourly rate is charged for both entries
- Phantom work (£4,437 for review/preparing documents and making notes (26.1 hours) – no specific deliverable identified; £3,383 for review of particulars… preparing schedule (19.9 hours – cross referencing work). Total phantom work: 46 hours = £7,820
- Grade manipulation (billing the same solicitor at different rates)
- Inflated rates reportedly up to 169% above market standards
- Time records misaligned with documented communications: Statement 1 (General Costs), £884 claimed for preparing statement costs (5.2 hours), in reality, inputting 22 numbers and one A4 page schedule = 30 minutes maximum. Overcharge: £799 (1,600% inflation). Statement 2 (Strikeout Application), £3,570 claimed for preparing statement of costs (21 hours – nearly 3 working days). In reality, a one-page schedule with half a page of description = 1 to 2 hours maximum. Overcharge: £3,230 (2,100% inflation)
- Double counting across statements: the same work is charged multiple times
Most notably, DWF Law LLP explicitly stated in correspondence dated 14 October 2024: “there are no receipts as there is no requirement to provide a receipt” for legal services – an explicit denial of legal documentation obligations.
Despite these serious allegations, SRA Investigation Officer Mr. Mel Humphreys refused to investigate the matter on 26 July 2025, citing jurisdictional confusion and stating there was “no right of appeal or review” of the decision.
4. The key deficiencies of SRA handling
The complainant’s thorough objection to this decision outlined nine key deficiencies in how the SRA handled the matter, including:
- Complete failure to address the explicit denial of legal obligations by DWF Law LLP
- Fundamental misunderstanding of regulatory vs. civil jurisdiction – conflating cost assessment with professional conduct violations
- Jurisdictional confusion that effectively allowed both law firms involved to escape scrutiny
- Incorrect statement about appeal rights – contradicting the SRA’s own rules
The correspondence examined by this media uncovers a concerning pattern in the SRA’s responses covering deflection from the regulatory violations and fraud allegations reported to them, and the non-application of their own rules and regulations to a major law firm.
Dissatisfied with Mr. Mel Humphreys’ failure to investigate, the complainant raised the issues with the SRA’s outgoing CEO, Mr. Paul Philip, who did not respond. Instead, Paul Cooper, the SRA Complaints Manager, replied, stating that SRA rules “do not require solicitors to provide receipts for legal services,” fundamentally misrepresenting both the scope of regulatory obligations and the seriousness of DWF’s categorical denial of legal requirements.
The complainant argued that allowing large law firms to categorically refuse statutory obligations raises several serious concerns about accountability, the investigation of financial impropriety and the erosion in public trust. It creates opportunities for revenue concealment and tax avoidance through undocumented transactions.
The complainant highlighted the public interest in these issues, stating: “The public expects and deserves regulatory protection from professional misconduct. Your responses suggest the SRA provides neither protection nor accountability.”
5. Serious questions raised
This case raises essential questions about the SRA’s regulatory approach:
- Can major law firms such as DWF LLP legitimately claim legal requirements “do not exist” without regulatory consequences?
- How does the SRA maintain professional standards when firms openly dismiss statutory obligations?
- What is the purpose of professional regulation, if clear violations are dismissed through procedural deflection?
This case appears to be a vital test of the SRA’s regulatory credibility. When a leading law firm openly challenges the existence of legal documentation requirements, the regulator’s response – or absence of one – reveals the boundaries of acceptable professional behaviour. Whether through regulatory capture, institutional failings, or simple procedural errors, the SRA’s handling of this matter casts serious doubt on the effectiveness of legal professional regulation in England and Wales.
6. Conclusion
As the legal profession faces increasing scrutiny over transparency and accountability, this case underscores the urgent need for strong regulatory oversight, which it seems the SRA cannot provide. When major law firms like DWF LLP can neglect statutory obligations without facing penalties, the entire system of professional regulation is called into question.
The SRA’s response to these serious allegations will probably be a key moment for the regulator’s credibility and its commitment to public protection rather than just organisational convenience. Ultimately, this is a matter that Sarah Rapson, the new Chief Executive of the SRA, must resolve when she takes over from Paul Philip later in 2025.
