He said, she said

Print This Post

25 March 2011

A Law Society/SRA liaison meeting in action

That the Law Society and Solicitors Regulation Authority are not the best of friends is not news to those close to the world of legal regulation. They generally keep it reasonably well hidden from public view but this week we have seen a bit of a “he said, she said” over what happened in the week between the SRA approving the ABS licensing application and the Law Society council agreeing it.

When is a compromise not a compromise? Or a concession not a concession? I don’t know and don’t particularly want to get drawn into it. But I will return briefly to my blog of three days ago and suggest that had both the Law Society council and the SRA held the conclusions of their debates in public, then we wouldn’t have got into this. A plague on both your houses, I say.

On a similar note, I also couldn’t understand why the Law Society held a high-powered conference on regulation yesterday – with speakers including justice minister Jonathan Djanogly and Legal Services Board chief executive Chris Kenny – but again decided to do it behind closed doors. Once more, what is there to hide?

I can’t decide if the tension between the Law Society and SRA is a good thing or not. It certainly looks petty at times, such as not inviting the SRA top brass to the Law Society Excellence Awards, or not having an SRA representative speak at yesterday’s conference. But equally at least nobody could ever suggest that the two are in cahoots with each other; the SRA certainly guards its independence jealously.

The profession would want to have its representative body going hard at the regulator in defence of their interests, and I don’t think the SRA would necessarily mind that. But I sense that the very nature of the governance arrangements, which see the two inextricably linked from an operational point of view, adds considerably to the problem.

After my own long association with Chancery Lane, I suspect I get a bit too caught up in the fevered world of Law Society politics, certainly stretching readers’ interest in the subject, so hopefully next week we can return to the bigger picture.

But one final note – I think I perhaps discovered the real reason why the council met in private: a senior council member told me that they were afraid of being misquoted (by people like me, I took the implication to be). But come the next big initiative, you can be sure they’ll be on the phone asking for coverage.

Tags: ,

Leave a comment

* Denotes required field

All comments will be moderated before posting. Please see our Terms and Conditions

Legal Futures Blog

Rating lawyers by their wins and losses – a good idea?

Robert Ambrogi

Lawyers will give you any number of reasons why their win-loss rates in court are not accurate reflections of their legal skills. Yet a growing number of companies are evaluating lawyers by this standard – compiling and analysing lawyers’ litigation track records to help consumers and businesses make more-informed hiring decisions. The shortcomings of evaluating lawyers by win rates are many. Not least of them is that so few cases ever make it to a win or loss. Of equal concern is that, in the nuances of law practice, it is not always obvious what constitutes a win or a loss.

February 22nd, 2017