Focus on assigned risks pool forces SRA to cut down other monitoring visits

Print This Post

By Legal Futures

15 November 2010


Townsend: strategy to focus our resources on where we identify the principal risks

The focus on law firms in the assigned risks pool has led to a significant fall in the number of other monitoring visits conducted by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), Legal Futures can report.

The SRA says the move is an example of its shift towards risk-based regulation.

The SRA’s latest performance update shows that the practice standards unit (PSU) – which carries out monitoring – conducted 240 visits in the third quarter of 2010, a relatively high number, but 87 of which were in support of the SRA’s assigned risks pool enforcement strategy.

The SRA’s website contains performance figures from 2007 and Legal Futures research indicates that the 153 ‘regular’ monitoring visits is the lowest quarterly figures since those records were first published. Firms are chosen for monitoring through profiling and also from referrals by the SRA’s risk assessment and designation centre.

SRA chief executive Antony Townsend said: “The practice standards unit has spearheaded the SRA’s enforcement drive on the assigned risks pool, which has involved a considerable amount of preparatory work and follow-up visits. There has been an inevitable reduction in the team’s normal visiting programme, and this is part of our strategy to focus our resources on where we identify the principal risks. We have also brought in accountancy expertise from KPMG to help in this important work.

“This approach has resulted in recovery of a substantial amount of outstanding premiums and a reduction in the number of firms in the ARP, improving public protection and reducing costs to the profession.”

Tags: , , , , ,



Leave a comment

* Denotes required field

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

Legal Futures Blog

Building a strong business case for IT investment

Nigel Wright

Investment in IT is necessary for forward-thinking law firms looking to succeed in today’s market. However, the value of IT is often under-appreciated and seen as just another overhead by senior management. It’s therefore important to understand how to write a convincing business case that helps decision makers understand why IT investments are necessary and the potential impact on the firm’s ability to compete.

September 22nd, 2017