Martin John Welch
Solicitor
138085

Decision - Control of practice

Outcome: Condition

Outcome date: 5 March 2026

Published date: 9 March 2026

Firm details

Firm or organisation at time of matters giving rise to outcome

Name: Morton Pugh Welch

Address(es): Eagle House, 167 City Road, London, EC1V 1AW.

Firm ID: 68275

Outcome details

This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

Decision details

1. Agreed outcome

1.1 Martin John Welch ('Mr Welch'), a solicitor formerly of Morton Pugh Welch ('the Firm'), agrees to the following outcome to the investigation of his conduct by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA):

1. he is fined £2,387
2. to the publication of this agreement
3. he will pay the costs of the investigation of £600.

2. Summary of Facts

2.1 Mr Welch was a partner, Compliance Officer for Finance and Administration ('COFA') and Compliance Officer for Legal Practice ('COLP') at the Firm. As COFA he had responsibility for ensuring that the Firm and its managers and employees comply with any obligations imposed upon them under the SRA Accounts Rules 2019.

2.2 The SRA received a report from the Firm’s reporting accountants advising that the Firm had failed to have an accountants report prepared for the accounting periods ending 31 March 2020, 31 March 2021, 31 March 2022 and 31 March 2023.

2.3 The Firm was acquired by another firm on 30 April 2023 and all live client files and related client monies were passed to that acquiring firm. The Firm retained on their client account miscellaneous client balances relating to completed client matters.

2.4 On 12 February 2024, the Firm held £54,720.71 in relation to residual client account balances. Since that time, Mr Welch has taken steps to identify and return some of the residual client account balances to the relevant clients.

2.5 On 15 October 2025 Mr Welch had reduced the total of the residual client account balances to £9,228.43. In total there were 110 residual client account balances and the oldest matter dated back to 04 November 2002. The sums for each client matter ranged from a minimum of £0.01 to a maximum of £1,009.77. There were 24 balances above £100 and of those there were 11 that were over £200.

3. Admissions

3.1 Mr Welch makes the following admissions which the SRA accepts:

1. That he failed to obtain accountants reports for the accounting periods ending 31 March 2020, 31 March 2021, 31 March 2022 and 31 March 2023. His conduct breached principle 2 of the SRA Principles 2019, rule 12.1 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2019, paragraph 9.1(b) of the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms 2019 and paragraph 9.2 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms 2019 which say:

Principle 2 of the SRA Principles 2019

You act in a way that upholds public trust and confidence in the solicitors’ profession and in legal services provided by authorised persons.

Rule 12.1 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2019

If you have, at any time during an accounting period, held or received client money, or operated a joint account or a client’s own account as signatory, you must:

1. obtain an accountant’s report for that accounting period within six months of the end of the period; and
2. deliver it to the SRA within six months of the end of the accounting period if the accountant’s repot is qualified to show a failure to comply with these rules, such that money belonging to clients or third parties is, or has been, or is likely to be placed, at risk.

Paragraph 9.1(b) of the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms 2019

If you are a COLP you must take reasonable steps to:

2. ensure compliance by your firm and its managers, employees, or interest holders with the SRA’s regulatory arrangements which apply to them.

Paragraph 9.2 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms 2019

If you are a COFA you must take all reasonable steps to:

1. ensure that your firm and its managers and employees comply with any obligations imposed upon them under the SRA Accounts Rules;
2. ensure that a prompt report is made to the SRA of any facts or matters that you reasonably believe are capable of amounting to a serious breach of the SRA Accounts Rules which apply to them;
3. notwithstanding sub-paragraph (b), you ensure that the SRA is informed promptly of any facts or matters that you reasonably believe should be brought to its attention in order that it may investigate whether a serious breach of its regulatory arrangements has occurred or otherwise exercise its regulatory powers.
4. That he failed to return client monies to clients promptly after there was no longer any reason to hold those funds following the conclusion of their matters. His conduct breached principle 2 of the SRA Principles 2019 and rule 2.5 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2019 which say:

Principle 2 of the SRA Principles 2019

You act in a way that upholds public trust and confidence in the solicitors’ profession and in legal services provided by authorised persons.

Rule 2.5 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2019

You ensure that client money is returned promptly to the client, or third party for whom the money is held, as soon as there is no longer any proper reason to hold those funds.

4. Why a fine is an appropriate outcome

4.1 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.

4.2 When considering the appropriate sanctions and controls in this matter, the SRA has taken into account the admissions made by Mr Welch and the following mitigation which he has put forward:

1. Mr Welch made early admissions to the breaches identified.
2. Mr Welch’s failure to obtain accountants reports was on account of his misunderstanding of his obligations and not intentional.
3. Mr Welch has taken steps to return the residual client account balances still held to the relevant clients.
4. Mr Welch has no previous regulatory history and there are no other current matters outstanding against him.

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

1. The oldest residual balance is from 2002 and no accountants reports were obtained for the periods ending 31 March 2020, 31 March 2021, 31 March 2022 and 31 March 2023. Therefore, the breaches formed a pattern of misconduct over a number of years.
2. The Firm held onto funds which belonged to its clients for an unacceptable period of time. The delay in returning the funds increased the risk that the intended recipients would not be located and would not receive their funds.
3. Mr Welch was the COLP and COFA at the Firm and had responsibility for ensuring that it met the requirements of the SRA Accounts Rules but failed to do so.
4. The agreed outcome is a proportionate outcome in the public interest and is a credible deterrent to others.

4.4 A fine is appropriate to maintain professional standards and uphold public confidence in the solicitors' profession and in legal services provided by authorised persons. A financial penalty therefore meets the requirements of rule 4.1 of the Regulatory and Disciplinary Procedure Rules.

5. Amount of the fine

5.1 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 (the Guidance).

5.2 Having regard to the Guidance, the SRA and Mr Welch agree that the nature of the misconduct was serious because the conduct can be said to be reckless, continued after it was known to be improper, formed a pattern of misconduct over a number of years and involved issues relating to accounts rules and client money. The Guidance gives this type of misconduct a score of three.

5.3 The SRA considers that the impact of the misconduct was medium because the delay in distributing client funds may impact beneficiaries who are unable to be located and therefore will not receive the funds owed to them. Some beneficiaries may have suffered loss or inconvenience due to the delay in receiving funds due to them. In addition, the failure to obtain accountants reports for a period of four years could have resulted in loss for clients. The Guidance gives this level of impact a score of four.

5.4 The nature and impact scores add up to seven. The Guidance indicates a broad penalty bracket of between 16% and 49% of Mr Welch’s gross annual income is appropriate.

5.5 In deciding the level of fine within this bracket, the SRA has considered the mitigation at paragraph 4.2 above which Mr Welch has put forward.

5.6 On this basis, the SRA considers that a fine towards the middle of the bracket to be appropriate. However, this must be balanced against the fact that Mr Welch was directly responsible for compliance with the SRA Accounts Rules on behalf of the Firm and the breaches continued for a number of years. The SRA considers that a basic penalty towards the middle of the bracket to be appropriate.

5.7 Based on the evidence Mr Welch has provided of his gross annual income for the most recent tax year, this results in a basic penalty of £2,984.

5.8 The SRA considers that the basic penalty should be reduced to £2,387. This reduction reflects the early admissions made by Mr Welch to the conduct in question, the steps which he has taken to return the monies due to clients and his cooperation with the SRA investigation.

5.9 Mr Welch does not appear to have made any financial gain or received any other benefit as a result of his conduct. Therefore, no adjustment is necessary to remove this, and the amount of the fine is £2,387.

6. Publication

6.1 The SRA considers it appropriate that this agreement is published in the interests of transparency in the regulatory and disciplinary process. Mr Welch agrees to the publication of this agreement.

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

7.1 Mr Welch agrees that he will not deny the admissions made in this agreement or act in any way which is inconsistent with it.

7.2 If Mr Welch 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.

7.3 Denying the admissions made or 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 7.3 of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs.

8. Costs

8.1 Mr Welch agrees to pay the costs of the SRA's investigation in the sum of £600. Such costs are due within 28 days of a statement of costs due being issued by the SRA.