English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The January 2019 ruling of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal in Solicitors Regulation Authority v Sharif1 highlighted the care that legal practitioners must take in order to satisfy their anti-money laundering obligations and the serious consequences of any failure to do so. This is the subject of a separate note in this issueof the Denning Law Journal.2 However, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal applied the criminal standard of proof in the case. The question as to whether this is now the appropriate approach is the subject of this note.

The Standard of Proof in Disciplinary Proceedings: Solicitors Regulation Authority v Sharif (2019)