Nine SRA alerts: a genuine name cannot verify an instruction

The brief

The SRA published nine alerts dated 29 September–2 October 2026, as reconciled against its September and October indexes on 5 October. They include a deposit-redirection email and a cloned site carrying genuine professional details. The full record links all nine warnings.

This counts published alerts, not victims, losses or separate criminal groups. The practical lesson is to verify the specific request through a route established independently of the suspicious message. Finding a genuine solicitor’s name or registration number does not establish who sent an instruction. We have also updated our September register to 48 entries after finding an additional alert dated 30 September.

The full record

A message can name a real solicitor and still contain an unauthorised instruction. The SRA’s nine alerts dated 29 September–2 October illustrate that problem through payment requests, cloned websites, invoices and purported help recovering money. The genuine professionals whose details were misused are not accused of wrongdoing by this report.

A changed destination for deposit money

The 29 September Majharul Miah alert concerns emails asking clients to send deposits to an alternative bank account. The SRA says the messages used a lookalike email address with an extra letter and bank accounts unconnected to the genuine firm. The genuine solicitor confirmed no connection to the emails.

Our analysis: a change to an existing instruction deserves its own verification record. The record should identify the earlier instruction, the requested replacement, who confirmed the change and how that person’s authority was established. A general note saying “details checked” leaves the most important question unanswered: which details, with whom?

Copied public details can make a false website look credible

The 2 October Alcyone Law alert describes a website that misused the genuine firm’s name, SRA identifier, address and contact details, alongside a genuine solicitor’s identity. The firm and solicitor confirmed they had no connection to it.

That example shows why matching public information is an incomplete check. A registration number can establish that a professional exists; the copied number cannot authenticate a different website. The SRA advises checking questionable correspondence by contacting the genuine firm through reliable, established means. The check should also confirm the particular request.

A recovery offer is still a request that needs checking

The FM Legal warning concerns emails offering to recover cryptocurrency-related losses while misusing a genuine firm’s name and SRA number. The genuine firm said it had no connection to the named senders and did not provide services to individual consumers. The F A Solicitors warning concerns a purported investment-recovery call; the SRA says it does not regulate a solicitor or firm under the names used in that call.

Our analysis: being offered assistance does not settle the sender’s authority. Give the recipient a way to check the scope of the real firm’s services and obtain an attributable answer before sending documents, instructions or money. Preserve that answer with the request so the next colleague does not have to repeat the investigation.

What the count says—and what it cannot say

Seven entries are dated 29–30 September and two 2 October. We found no further October entries in the live index at our 5 October check. This is publication activity by one regulator, not a measure of all attempted fraud. We make no claim that losses or underlying incidents rose or fell.

The previous 22–28 September window contains 16 alerts, as corrected in our September register. The earlier figure of 14 should no longer be used. That monthly register now contains 48 September entries; the additional F A Solicitors alert is dated 30 September and was absent from our earlier snapshot.

The complete nine-alert register

• 29 September: Emails seeking an alternative account for deposit money.
• 30 September: Invoices misusing Leeds Family Law’s details.
• 30 September: Emails and a website misusing Andrew Kidd’s name.
• 30 September: A tenancy-change letter claiming to be from Masood Haider Solicitors.
• 30 September: Conveyancing emails and letterhead misusing SM Solicitors’ details.
• 30 September: A website misusing Ashraf Legal’s details.
• 30 September: A recovery call claiming to be from Adam Baxter of F A Solicitors.
• 2 October: A website misusing Alcyone Law and Zahra Mohamed’s details.
• 2 October: Recovery emails misusing FM Legal’s name and SRA number.

A useful check for a firm is to ask someone unfamiliar with the matter to follow its approved verification route using a fictional request. Record whether they reach the right person, confirm the exact action and retain the answer. That is an exercise proposed by The Formal Record, not evidence that a particular product prevents fraud.

We checked all three pages of the live September index and the October index on 5 October 2026, then reconciled unique URLs by the publication date displayed in each alert. Nine entries fall in 29 September–2 October; the October index showed two entries. Alert URL folders say “sep” even for the two October publications, so folder names were not used as dates. All nine individual sources were opened. An alert can concern several communications; these counts do not measure victims, losses, perpetrators or all fraud. We do not infer the first appearance time of the additional September entry. The linked monthly register preserves its earlier snapshot and amendment.

1. SRA September 2026 index
2. SRA October 2026 index
3. 29 September: Emails seeking an alternative account for deposit money
4. 30 September: Invoices misusing Leeds Family Law’s details
5. 30 September: Emails and a website misusing Andrew Kidd’s name
6. 30 September: A tenancy-change letter claiming to be from Masood Haider Solicitors
7. 30 September: Conveyancing emails and letterhead misusing SM Solicitors’ details
8. 30 September: A website misusing Ashraf Legal’s details
9. 30 September: A recovery call claiming to be from Adam Baxter of F A Solicitors
10. 2 October: A website misusing Alcyone Law and Zahra Mohamed’s details
11. 2 October: Recovery emails misusing FM Legal’s name and SRA number