header-logo header-logo

16 November 2022
Issue: 8003 / Categories: Legal News , Regulatory , Profession , Professional negligence
printer mail-detail

Adjudicators ‘acting as investigators’

Solicitors have not been offered adequate safeguards since the Solicitors Regulatory Authority (SRA) took over professional misconduct fines in the summer, the Law Society has warned.

In July, the SRA’s fining powers for law firms and solicitors increased from £2,000 to £25,000, with the SRA planning to decide more cases of alleged misconduct in-house instead of referring them to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. Alongside their increased powers, the SRA proposed additional safeguards to ensure its enforcement processes are sufficiently transparent and accountable. Its consultation, Financial penalties, ended in February 2022, and it has now set out its final position.

Commenting this week on the SRA’s plans, however, the Law Society said it had ‘serious concerns’ SRA adjudicators would be acting as ‘investigators rather than decision-makers’.

It also dubbed SRA proposals to increase fines against firms from a maximum of 2.5% to 5% of turnover ‘excessive and unjustified’.

Law Society president Lubna Shuja said: ‘Adjudicators, as SRA employees, have access to the regulator’s records and can see a solicitor’s past regulatory history.

‘This could prejudice their views and could lead to an unfair decision. We therefore suggest the information adjudicators can access be restricted to ensure a fairer process.

‘The SRA also proposes giving adjudicators sole discretion to invite witnesses to be interviewed to test their evidence and credibility. Adjudicators would then be acting as investigators and not decision-makers. The SRA also proposes that a respondent would not be present at such an inquisition. This cannot be fair.’

The SRA says increasing the fine threshold will reduce the cost, time and stress for those involved, while raising the turnover threshold will ensure fines are proportionate and act as an effective deterrent. It said it received ‘general support’ for its increase in fining powers and ‘mixed views’ on raising the threshold for firms, in consultation feedback.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

From first-generation student to trailblazing president of the London Solicitors Litigation Association, John McElroy of Fieldfisher reflects on resilience, identity and the power of bringing your whole self to the law

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Planning and environment team expands with partner hire in Manchester

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Firm appoints chief operating officer to strengthen leadership team

NEWS
A landmark Supreme Court ruling has underscored the sweeping reach of UK sanctions. In NLJ this week, Brónagh Adams and Harriet Campbell of Penningtons Manches Cooper say the regime is a ‘blunt instrument’ requiring only a factual, not causal, link to restricted goods
Fraud claims are surging, with England and Wales increasingly the forum of choice for global disputes. Writing in NLJ this week, Jon Felce of Cooke, Young & Keidan reports claims have risen sharply, with fraud now a major share of litigation and costing billions worldwide
Litigators digesting Mazur are being urged to tighten oversight and compliance. In his latest 'Insider' column for NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School provides a cut out and keep guide to the ruling’s core test: whether an unauthorised individual is ‘in truth acting on behalf of the authorised individual’
Conflicting county court rulings have left landlords uncertain over whether they can force entry after tenants refuse access. In this week's NLJ, Edward Blakeney and Ashpen Rajah of Falcon Chambers outline a split: some judges permit it under CPR 70.2A, others insist only Parliament can authorise such powers
A wave of scandals has reignited debate over misconduct in public office, criticised as unclear and inconsistently applied. Writing in NLJ this week, Alice Lepeuple of WilmerHale says the offence’s ‘vagueness, overbreadth & inconsistent deployment’ have undermined confidence
back-to-top-scroll