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: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Wedlake Bell—Rebecca Christie

Wedlake Bell—Rebecca Christie

Firm welcomes partner with specialist expertise in family and art law

Birketts—Álvaro Aznar

Birketts—Álvaro Aznar

Dual-qualified partner joins international private client team

NEWS
Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
In a striking financial remedies ruling, the High Court cut a wife’s award by 40% for coercive and controlling behaviour. Writing in NLJ this week, Chris Bryden and Nicole Wallace of 4 King’s Bench Walk analyse LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473
A €60.9m award to Kylian Mbappé has refocused attention on football’s controversial ‘ethics bonus’ clauses. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law examines how such provisions sit within French labour law
A seemingly dry procedural update may prove potent. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ this week, Stephen Gold explains that new CPR 31.12A—part of the 193rd update—fills a ‘lacuna’ exposed in McLaren Indy v Alpa Racing
back-to-top-scroll