header-logo header-logo

Don’t put it in writing?

12 February 2016 / Peter Breakey
Issue: 7686 / Categories: Features , Regulatory
printer mail-detail

Peter Breakey reports on the SRA clampdown on private correspondence

A recent decision of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) has provided a useful reminder to solicitors of the need to exercise caution whenever they send an e-mail, even if they believe they are engaged in private correspondence. The same decision also considered the relationship between principles and outcomes in the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) Code of Conduct 2011 (the Code) and raised what some may consider to be the rather menacing and Orwellian prospect of the SRA pursuing solicitors for “thought crime”.

Case No. 11380-2015, Solicitors Regulation Authority v Brough, Chaudhary and Story, concerned three former partners of London firm, OH Parsons and Partners. Over a period of around 12 months in 2010 and 2011, while they were still at the firm, they had exchanged a series of e-mails which contained “inappropriate and offensive” comments. The precise contents of the e-mails were not disclosed but they included “abusive, disparaging and insulting comments about colleagues”, contained “sexual and racial references” and included comments about

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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll