SRA: Reforms under scrutiny
The SME & Boutique Law Firm Alliance wants to press ahead with a vote of no confidence in the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) board in the wake of the Law Society annual general meeting, it has confirmed.
The news comes as the Solicitors Sole Practitioners Group (SPG) has launched a petition [1] calling for “a proper review” of various proposed regulatory changes, saying the cumulative effect of them “could place a disproportionate financial and administrative burden on sole practitioners and small firms”.
In a statement issued yesterday, the Alliance said: “The discussion [at the AGM] [2] demonstrated the strength of feeling surrounding the SRA’s performance, the challenges facing smaller law firms and the importance of meaningful professional representation.
“The Alliance remains committed to securing an appropriately constituted vote of no confidence in the SRA board.”
The statement stressed that its concerns extended beyond any single regulatory proposal, although the Alliance’s creation was sparked by the changes to the compliance officer rules.
“They encompass the effectiveness of regulatory oversight, proportionality, transparency, public protection and the accountability of those responsible for regulatory decision-making.”
The Alliance said such a vote was not “an alternative to constructive engagement”, reflecting suggestions that it could damage relationships with the regulator. “Rather, we consider democratic scrutiny an important means of ensuring that engagement produces meaningful and measurable outcomes…
“A confidence vote would provide a formal mechanism for members to express their assessment of the regulator’s leadership and performance.
“While such a vote would not automatically remove the SRA board, it could carry significant representative weight and inform further engagement with the SRA, the Legal Services Board and other relevant stakeholders.”
The statement said it understood that the Law Society council may revisit the question of a confidence vote at its meeting in December, depending on what happened between now and then.
“We will seek formal clarification of that process, including the scope of council’s consideration and the potential for a special general meeting. We will also continue examining the procedural requirements for a properly notified motion at the 2027 AGM.
“In parallel, the Alliance will continue engaging with the SRA and the Legal Services Board, seeking substantive progress on the concerns already raised.”
The statement added that the campaign was not intended to undermine either the SRA or the Law Society. “It is intended to strengthen them through transparency, proportionality and meaningful accountability.”
The SPG petition highlights concerns about four specific reforms: the compliance officer changes; the Ministry of Justice’s (MoJ) plans to take most client account interest; unspecified “proposed changes to the complaints process” (both the SRA and Legal Ombudsman (LeO) are separately looking at reforms); and the possible transfer of disputes about solicitors’ bills worth up to £50,000 to LeO.
The petition describes the last of these as a LeO proposal when in fact it was made by the Civil Justice Council working party [3] on reform to part III of the Solicitors Act 1974.
The petition – which has attracted 161 signatures so far – calls on the SRA, Legal Services Board, LeO and MoJ to review the proposals, engage “meaningfully” with practising solicitors and “consider the impact of increasing regulation on the ability of small regulated practices to compete within the wider legal services market”.
Separately, the Conveyancing Task Force has published an open letter to the SRA following a meeting last week with it about the compliance officer reforms.
“Where existing governance and safeguards are effective, imposing changes with damaging consequences requires clear evidence of the risk being addressed and the additional protection those changes would deliver,” it said.
“The strength of concern expressed during the meeting reflected a serious question about whether the SRA sufficiently understands these practical realities.
“We ask that the cumulative burden is expressly assessed, including its effects on firms’ viability, local services, access to justice and consumer choice.”
Stephen Larcombe, the head of the Property Lawyers Alliance who set up the taskforce, wrote: “As we explained, our concerns extend beyond the COLP and COFA proposals. They reinforce the need for a wider review of whether the SRA’s regulatory priorities and approach remain appropriate for today’s legal services landscape, including whether the COLP and COFA model itself remains effective across the wide spectrum of businesses now operating.
“We agree that common standards of client protection are essential. The means of achieving them should reflect actual risks, existing safeguards and the nature and complexity of the business.
“The review should test which measures work, in which settings, and whether their benefits justify their costs.”