Regulators target inconsistencies in approach to bullying and harassment

Hill: Idea met with universal positivity

Work has begun to create a consistent approach across all the legal regulators to sexual misconduct, racial harassment, bullying and other forms of “anti-inclusive misconduct”, it has emerged.

The Legal Services Board (LSB) is developing a statement to set out agreed common principles on the treatment of such misconduct by regulators and tribunals in a bid to reduce differences in the way they are handled.

The seemingly lenient sentences handed out to barristers for sexual misconduct when compared to those for solicitors and other professionals have been under the spotlight in recent months and led to a review of the Bar Adjudication and Tribunal Service’s (BTAS) sanctions guidance.

According to chief executive Matthew Hill, the oversight regulator held a roundtable earlier this month with the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, Bar Standards Board and BTAS to explore “a sector-wide statement on the use of disciplinary sanctions to tackle counter-inclusive misconduct”.

He told this week’s meeting of the LSB: “There was in principle agreement to the proposal and the underlying need for action to bring greater consistency across the sector. All parties at the meeting expressed a commitment to tackling diversity and inclusion issues in enforcement and sanctions.

“There was broad agreement that a statement of principle on counter-inclusive practices would be valuable in signalling greater consistency across the sector on enforcement sanctions.

“This would address concerns about apparent inconsistencies in the sanctions applied in cases, for example, of sexual misconduct, racial harassment and bullying.”

In a letter this week to regulators, Mr Hill said the idea had been received with “universal positivity across all regulatory bodies”.

The LSB will now start to develop a draft of the statement ahead of agreement and publication in the autumn.

The move is the first concrete example of the LSB’s push to increase collaboration between all the regulators, with different ones taking the lead depending on the topic – the SRA has offered to lead work on legal technology.

Papers published this week said that another issue where the LSB was well-placed to lead a joint effort was professional indemnity insurance, with a major review of the sector’s approach increasingly likely to be in its 2022/23 business plan.

“This would require significant staffing and financial resource to do properly. We would welcome interested regulators making resource available – perhaps through secondment or other collaborative forms of working – to start scoping the work in 2021/22.”

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.


What challenges will the Bar face in the next five years?

As we look towards the end of 2021 and at how the Bar has adapted to the harsh realities of the pandemic, the question beckons as to what the future holds.

The rise of cyber-criminal threat for law firms since Covid-19

The global coronavirus pandemic, and the rise in people working from home, has unfortunately provoked a growth in cyber-crime. The UK government estimates that the cost of cyber-crime is £27bn per annum.

How to ensure your ATE cover is adequate security for costs

When does an after-the-event insurance policy provide adequate security for a defendant’s costs? The short answer is that it very much depends on the wording of the particular policy.

Loading animation