header-logo header-logo

All change...again!

23 April 2009
Issue: 7366 / Categories: Opinion , In-House , Profession
printer mail-detail

Tina Campbell welcomes the SRA’s U-turn on conflicts & confidentiality

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has announced its intention to make wide ranging amendments to the rules on conflicts and confidentiality. The current process of consultation with the profession was launched several months ago, when the ink was barely dry on the last set of “wide ranging” changes (now in rrs 3 and 4 of the Solicitors Code of Conduct 2007). The 2007 amendments suffered a tortuous journey from the widespread calls for change in 2000, to government approval in 2006. Why then, so soon, are further amendments required?

Blame

 

Some practitioners may be asking whether the Law Society is to blame for the failure to get it right last time. Surely, it must be their fault that the 2007 changes have not proved sufficient? Others may be wondering whether after so much consultation and redrafting it is actually possible to produce a single set of rules applicable to the wide spectrum of law firms in this country.

 

So, what went wrong with rr

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Pillsbury—Steven James

Pillsbury—Steven James

Firm boosts London IP capability with high-profile technology sector hire

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Private client specialist joins as partner in Taunton office

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

Finance and restructuring offering strengthened by partner hire in London

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) continues to stir controversy across civil litigation, according to NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School—AKA ‘The insider’
SRA v Goodwin is a rare disciplinary decision where a solicitor found to have acted dishonestly avoided being struck off, says Clare Hughes-Williams of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) imposed a 12-month suspension instead, citing medical evidence and the absence of harm to clients
In their latest Family Law Brief for NLJ, Ellie Hampson-Jones and Carla Ditz of Stewarts review three key family law rulings, including the latest instalment in the long-running saga of Potanin v Potanina
The Asian International Arbitration Centre’s sweeping reforms through its AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, unveiled at Asia ADR Week, are under examination in this week's NLJ by John (Ching Jack) Choi of Gresham Legal
In this week's issue of NLJ, Yasseen Gailani and Alexander Martin of Quinn Emanuel report on the High Court’s decision in Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT) v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2025], where Denmark’s tax authority failed to recover £1.4bn in disputed dividend tax refunds
back-to-top-scroll