header-logo header-logo

Fines hike proposed in misconduct crackdown

09 August 2023
Issue: 8037 / Categories: Legal News , Profession
printer mail-detail
Legal professionals could face tougher financial penalties and heightened scrutiny, under plans put forward by super-regulator the Legal Services Board (LSB)

The LSB, which oversees all ten legal services regulators, announced last week that it will review the tools available to regulators with a view to raising the financial penalties at their disposal and enabling them to proactively gather information and share intelligence about wrongdoing.

Alan Kershaw, LSB Chair, said: ‘For some time, we have been concerned that a lack of effective fining powers among some regulators, particularly the SRA, may hamper their ability to tackle wilful and serious misconduct.’

Anna Bradley, chair, SRA Board, said: ‘We have, for some years now advocated that the SRA be given unlimited fining powers to create that deterrent more quickly.

‘While individual solicitors should face the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) for serious wrongdoing (and in appropriate cases forfeit their right to practise), that does not preclude the SRA from also fining them and their firm.’

However, the Law Society strongly opposes further hikes in penalties.

Law Society President Lubna Shuja said: ‘There is no evidence that the SRA’s current fining powers are insufficient.

‘The SRA does not exist on its own in the regulatory process. It sits alongside the SDT, which already has draconian powers to sanction any wrongdoing in the solicitors’ profession. These include not only fining powers but also the ability to remove a solicitor from the profession altogether.

‘The SDT remains the appropriate forum for serious cases of alleged misconduct. Further extending the SRA’s powers risks undermining the SDT’s role and authority and potentially reducing the sanctions imposed on bad conduct.’

The maximum penalty the SRA can impose was raised from £2,000 to £25,000 in July, 2022.

The SRA receives more than 10,000 complaints about firms and individual lawyers each year. In 2021/22, it referred 1,741 matters for investigation, resulting in 301 sanctions of which 49 were fines. It referred 76 cases of serious misconduct to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT). 

The government is currently considering increasing the maximum SRA penalty for misconduct that falls into the category of economic crime.

Issue: 8037 / Categories: Legal News , Profession
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll