header-logo header-logo

28 June 2022
Issue: 7985 / Categories: Legal News , Equality , Regulatory
printer mail-detail

Experts to monitor decisions by regulator

A team of experts from York, Cardiff and Lancaster universities has been appointed by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) to investigate the over-representation of solicitors from Black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds in reports made to it and in subsequent enforcement processes
The team will review the regulator’s decision making at the assessment stage to try to understand why a greater proportion of cases involving Black, Asian and minority solicitors are taken forward for investigation. Professional misconduct expert Claudia Gabbioneta, University of York, said the research project has ‘important implications for the future regulation of the legal profession’.
Issue: 7985 / Categories: Legal News , Equality , Regulatory
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley strengthens family law team

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Construction lawyer returns to Ward Hadaway in Teesside role

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird Bird hires leading legal transformation expert

NEWS
Legal aid deserts leave almost one in four without adequate access to justice
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct? 
back-to-top-scroll