ABSs face fines of up to 2.5% of turnover for serious misconduct


Fines: need to be credible deterrent

Alternative business structures (ABSs) with a turnover of more than £2m face fines of up to 2.5% of their turnover in cases of serious misconduct, under plans being considered by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA).

Following a consultation which received just seven responses, the SRA’s regulatory risk committee will today consider approving new indicative guidance on how the authority will approach financial penalties.

With the SRA currently limited to fining regular law firms £2,000, the guidance effectively only applies to ABSs, which it can fine up to £250m (£50m for individuals). SRA efforts to bring the levels for non-ABSs into line have so far been rebuffed by the government.

The draft guidance would only apply when the SRA decision-maker has determined that a fine is the appropriate penalty. “The aim of the guidance is to provide a consistent and transparent mechanism for determining penalties which will support a credible deterrence,” a paper before the committee explains.

As proposed, the decision-maker has to go through a three-step process to reach a figure: first there are detailed guidelines to determine a basic penalty taking into account the seriousness of the conduct; then the figure is adjusted to account for mitigating factors – generally by no more than 40%; and finally it is adjusted to eliminate the financial gain or other benefit obtained as a result of the conduct.

For individuals, the basic penalty would range from £500 to £50,000. For firms where their annual domestic turnover exceeds £2m, it would usually be a percentage of that figure, from 0.5% to 2.5%.

The SRA had consulted on whether the top figure should be as high as 10%, but concluded that 2.5% should still produce a sum that would act as a “significant deterrent for firms of greater means”; however, assuming the recommendations are accepted, this will be reviewed in two years to ensure that it is proving a credible deterrent.

The paper added: “Further, the potential for improper benefits arising from the misconduct to be removed in addition would also increase deterrent value and increase public confidence in cases where otherwise there may be concern… In practice it is anticipated that it is this third step of the fining guidance which will result in the highest penalties being imposed rather than fines within the parameters of the basic penalty at step 1.”

The committee will have the choice of either finalising the guidance itself or asking the SRA board to sign it off first.




Leave a Comment

By clicking Submit you consent to Legal Futures storing your personal data and confirm you have read our Privacy Policy and section 5 of our Terms & Conditions which deals with user-generated content. All comments will be moderated before posting.

Required fields are marked *
Email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Blog


A new route to practice rights for chartered legal executives

Following approval from the Legal Services Board in May 2022, CILEx Regulation has launched an alternative route for chartered legal executives to obtain independent practice rights.


NFTs, the courts and the role of injunctions

In May, news broke that a non-fungible token was the subject of a successful injunction made by the Singapore High Court. The NFT in question is part of the very valuable Bored Ape Yacht Club series.


Matthew Pascall

Low-value commercial cases – an achievable challenge for ATE insurers

There are many good claims brought for damages that are likely to be significantly less than twice the cost of bringing the claim. These cases present a real challenge for insurers.


Loading animation