header-logo header-logo

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

Don’t put it in writing?

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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll