Chris Farnell A Detailed Summary of Professional Controversies and Regulatory Findings
Chris Farnell is a high-profile solicitor in the UK sports law sector, best known as the founder of the Manchester-based firm IPS Law LLP. His career has been marked by advising major figures like Cristiano Ronaldo and Tyson Fury, but in recent years, it has been overshadowed by serious disciplinary proceedings and adverse High Court rulings.
🛑 The SRA Intervention and Disciplinary History
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has taken repeated action against Chris Farnell, culminating in the closure of IPS Law LLP in late 2025.
The 2025 SRA Intervention: The Closure of IPS Law LLP
In November 2025, the SRA used its statutory powers to intervene into the practice of IPS Law LLP. This action effectively shut down the firm's operations.
Grounds for Intervention: The SRA acted on the basis of having a "reason to suspect dishonesty" on the part of Mr. Farnell in connection with the firm's business.
Regulatory Breaches: The SRA also cited that Mr. Farnell, as a manager, and IPS Law LLP itself, had failed to comply with several critical rules, including:
The SRA Principles 2019.
The SRA Accounts Rules 2019 (which govern the handling of client money).
The SRA Codes of Conduct.
Consequences: The SRA suspended Mr. Farnell from practice. An intervening agent (Carl Johnson of Stephensons Solicitors LLP) was appointed to take possession of all client files and client money to protect the interests of clients and the public.
Status: An SRA intervention is a protective measure and is not a formal finding of misconduct by a tribunal. IPS Law LLP has lodged an appeal against the intervention, arguing it was "not justified," "unnecessary, and premature."
Prior Adverse Findings by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT)
The 2025 intervention followed a history of disciplinary actions against Mr. Farnell, often involving failures related to accounts and integrity.
2017/2021 Accounts Rules Case (Initial Strike-Off):
Farnell was found guilty by the SDT of multiple breaches of the Accounts Rules, primarily for allowing his client account to be used as a "banking facility" for transactions not related to underlying legal matters a very serious offence that can facilitate money laundering.
He was initially struck off the roll of solicitors in 2017.
He successfully appealed to the High Court, which deemed his actions "reprehensible" but concluded the strike-off was too harsh a penalty, substituting it with a suspension (though details vary by report, the key fact is the adverse finding on Accounts Rules breaches was upheld).
2015 "Lack of Integrity" Finding:
The SDT found that a previous firm with which he was associated, Farnell Law, had been used in a dishonest property investment scheme.
He was found to have acted with a "lack of integrity" for failing to carry out proper checks on the transaction, resulting in a three-month suspension.
The consistent findings over the years related to compliance with Accounts Rules and "lack of integrity" formed a significant part of his regulatory record leading up to the SRA's 2025 intervention.
⚖️ High Court Rulings on "Project Red Card"
The "Project Red Card" venture an effort to pursue group litigation for professional athletes against gaming and betting companies over the alleged misuse of their personal data—was a source of two major adverse High Court rulings for IPS Law and Mr. Farnell in 2024 and 2025.
1. The Retainer Dispute (July 2025)
IPS Law sued its former partner in the venture, Global Sports Data Technology Group Ltd (GSDT), for unpaid legal fees.
Judge's Conclusion: Senior Costs Judge Rowley ruled that IPS Law was not entitled to invoice for the work.
Key Finding: The judge concluded the relationship was not a traditional solicitor-client relationship where an implied retainer and liability for fees exists. Instead, he found it was a "partnership or joint venture" where IPS Law had taken the risk of working unpaid in exchange for a share of potential multi-million pound damages (10% of a hoped-for
19 $\text{£}60$ million).Evidence Cited: The judge noted the 18-month delay in producing a retainer letter and the lack of client care documentation, which supported the finding that this was a commercial arrangement where each party bore its own risk if the project failed.
2. The Debt and Winding-Up Dispute (October 2024)
IPS Law attempted to block a litigation funder, Safe Harbour Equity, from advertising a winding-up petition over a £500,000 loan that IPS Law had not repaid.
Judge's Conclusion: Deputy ICC Judge Curl KC dismissed IPS Law's application, concluding the firm had "no arguable defence" and "no rational prospect of success."
Criticism of Evidence: The judge was critical of Mr. Farnell's evidence, specifically highlighting his "significant silence" on what the firm had done with the £500,000 advanced to progress the claims (as no litigation had yet been brought).
Final Outcome: IPS Law subsequently reached a settlement with Safe Harbour, agreeing to repay the debt, which ultimately led to the petition being withdrawn.
⚽ The Charlton Athletic/EFL Disqualification
In 2020, Mr. Farnell was involved in a failed takeover attempt of Charlton Athletic and was initially disqualified by the English Football League (EFL) under its Owners’ and Directors’ Test (OADT).
The Reversal: Following an appeal to an independent League Arbitration Panel, the disqualification was successfully reversed.
Panel Finding: The panel found that an "inadvertent mistake had been made" during the initial OADT application and explicitly stated that there was "no dishonest or deliberate attempt to provide false or misleading information." This finding cleared him to pursue involvement with other clubs, though the initial disqualification remains a high-profile mark on his record.
27
Comments
Post a Comment