City of London solicitor fined £17,000 over risky property advice to overseas investors

A City of London law firm principal has been fined for advising clients on high-risk property schemes that resulted in significant financial losses, highlighting ongoing concerns over solicitor conduct in complex property deals.

A City of London law firm principal has been fined £17,000 for advising clients to invest in a high-risk and ultimately unsuccessful property scheme. Ming Fai Tam, also known as Matthew Tam, was found by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) to have charged clients around £1,300 for each property investment consultation while failing to provide adequate supervision for staff responsible for handling these transactions.

Between 2017 and 2020, Tam’s firm, Batchford Solicitors (later MFT Solicitors), facilitated the purchase of approximately 312 properties, mainly by overseas buyers. These investments involved properties sold by a special purpose vehicle with no trading accounts, requiring initial deposits ranging from 30% to 100% of the purchase price. The scheme promised buyers—primarily from the Far East—returns from converting properties into flats, student accommodation, or hotel rooms with guaranteed income. However, the developments underperformed, no promised returns were paid, and the buy-back provisions were ineffective because they depended on the seller’s solvency. Additionally, rental agreements were often unenforceable.

The SRA’s forensic investigation of 14 client files across six developments revealed multiple failings in the advice given. Tam admitted that he did not adequately warn clients about the risks inherent in off-plan buyer-led investment schemes, nor did he ensure that clients fully comprehended these risks. Furthermore, he acknowledged his failure to provide proper training and supervision to his staff, which contributed to the inadequate client advice.

Despite prior warnings issued to Tam in 2016 and 2017 concerning the risks of such schemes, he continued to accept and advise on these transactions. The SRA deemed his conduct a breach of regulatory standards, highlighting that clients suffered financial losses due to the lack of proper guidance. The regulator emphasised that issuing a fine serves to maintain public confidence in the solicitor profession and sends a clear message that such failings will not be tolerated.

In his defence, Tam, now employed by Chan Neill Solicitors in the City, stated that he currently undertakes ongoing training, stays updated on legal developments, and has his new firm’s partners review his files. He also asserted that he no longer accepts work involving sales of fractional property units like hotel rooms or office spaces and restricts new build transactions to those with deposit protections capped at 10%.

This case echoes broader concerns within the legal profession regarding conflicts of interest and inadequate client safeguards in property transactions. Separate disciplinary actions have underscored the importance of transparency, with another law firm owner suspended for failing to disclose interests in a property investment that later collapsed. Moreover, other solicitors have faced sanctions for poor property conveyancing advice, inadequate anti-money laundering controls, and dishonesty in high-value property deals—each underlining the ongoing need for rigorous professional standards.

The SRA’s firm stance in fining Tam and others reflects its commitment to protecting clients and maintaining the integrity of legal advice offered in complex and risky property investments.

📌 Reference Map:

Source: Noah Wire Services

Noah Fact Check Pro

The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first
emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed
below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may
warrant further investigation.

Freshness check

Score:
8

Notes:
The narrative appears to be original, with no substantially similar content found online. The earliest known publication date of similar content is June 22, 2020, concerning a different solicitor fined for failing to warn clients about off-plan property risks. ([lawgazette.co.uk](https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/veteran-solicitor-fined-for-failing-to-warn-clients-of-off-plan-property-risk/5104732.article?utm_source=openai)) The report is based on a press release from the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), which typically warrants a high freshness score. No discrepancies in figures, dates, or quotes were identified. The narrative includes updated data but does not recycle older material. No republishing across low-quality sites or clickbait networks was observed. No similar content was found more than 7 days earlier.

Quotes check

Score:
10

Notes:
No direct quotes were identified in the provided narrative.

Source reliability

Score:
9

Notes:
The narrative originates from the Law Society Gazette, a reputable publication in the legal field. The SRA, a regulatory body, is also a credible source.

Plausability check

Score:
9

Notes:
The claims made in the narrative are plausible and consistent with known regulatory actions in the legal profession. The SRA has previously fined solicitors for similar misconduct, such as failing to warn clients about off-plan property risks. ([lawgazette.co.uk](https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/veteran-solicitor-fined-for-failing-to-warn-clients-of-off-plan-property-risk/5104732.article?utm_source=openai)) The narrative lacks specific factual anchors like names, institutions, and dates, which slightly reduces its score. The language and tone are consistent with professional legal reporting.

Overall assessment

Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): PASS

Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): HIGH

Summary:
The narrative is original, based on a press release from the SRA, and originates from a reputable source. The claims are plausible and consistent with known regulatory actions. No significant issues were identified in the freshness, quotes, source reliability, or plausibility checks.