header-logo header-logo

Adjudicators ‘acting as investigators’

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

Kennedys—Samson Spanier

Kennedys—Samson Spanier

Commercial disputes practice bolstered by partner hire

Bird & Bird—Emma Radcliffe

Bird & Bird—Emma Radcliffe

London competition team expands with collective actions specialist hire

Hill Dickinson—Chris Williams

Hill Dickinson—Chris Williams

Commercial dispute resolution team in London welcomes partner

NEWS
Judging is ‘more intellectually demanding than any other role in public life’—and far messier than outsiders imagine. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC reflects on decades spent wrestling with unclear legislation, fragile precedent and human fallibility
The long-predicted death of the billable hour may finally be here—and this time, it’s armed with a scythe. In a sweeping critique of time-based billing, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, argues in this week's NLJ that artificial intelligence has made hourly charging ‘intellectually, commercially and ethically indefensible’
From fake authorities to rent reform, the civil courts have had a busy start to 2026. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ this week, Stephen Gold surveys a procedural landscape where guidance, discretion and discipline are all under strain
Fact-finding hearings remain a fault line in private family law. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Rylatt and Robyn Laye of Anthony Gold Solicitors analyse recent appeals exposing the dangers of rushed or fragmented findings
As the Winter Olympics open in Milan and Cortina, legal disputes are once again being resolved almost as fast as the athletes compete. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Ian Blackshaw of Valloni Attorneys examines the Court of Arbitration for Sport’s (CAS's) ad hoc divisions, which can decide cases within 24 hours
back-to-top-scroll