SRA and Law Society at loggerheads again over independent regulation

Print This Post

By Legal Futures

5 February 2016


Hands up if you support independent regulation of solicitors

Hands up if you support independent regulation of solicitors

The general public strongly supports the notion of full separation of legal regulators from professional bodies, according to the results of an opinion poll commissioned by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA).

The Law Society hit back by appearing to suggest an SRA stripped of its power to set solicitors’ standards should be merged with other legal regulators.

The survey raised still further the temperature of the row over independence between the regulator and the Law Society which erupted last month in the wake of an interview this website conducted with the latter’s chief executive.

In essence, the SRA wants to continue its present role but with structural independence from Chancery Lane, while the Law Society says it should control professional standards and entry to the profession, with an independent SRA just responsible for enforcement.

Pollster ComRes quizzed 1,810 adults, of whom 86% believed that solicitors should be regulated – more than said the same for doctors, dentists or accountants – while 82% said this should be carried out independently of their representative body.

Two-thirds said they were more likely to trust a profession that was independently regulated – while 75% said they generally preferred independent regulation of professionals to self-regulation – and 69% would feel more comfortable about making a complaint in such circumstances.

Asked directly about the government’s plan to make the SRA fully independent – as outlined by Chancellor George Osborne in the Autumn Statement – 77% said they supported it.

SRA chief executive Paul Philip said: “This research shows that the public overwhelmingly support independent regulation. Public confidence is key and, as this polling shows, people say they will have greater trust in their solicitor if they know they are independently regulated.

“I am clear that separating out regulator and representative body would not only meet public expectations, but would enhance the important role of the Law Society in making sure the voice of solicitors is heard and respected.”

The Law Society’s response stressed its bid to set the profession’s standards of behavior, conduct and ethics, leaving the enforcement of these to the SRA as an independent regulator.

Chief executive Catherine Dixon said: “Regulation is about the minimum regulatory rules which should apply to the whole market to protect consumers…

“Currently the regulatory maze is complex. There are numerous regulators of legal services and there is an opportunity to consolidate to save cost. There is also confusion because currently there is a very broad definition of regulation which includes regulatory rules, professional standards and conduct, ethics, entry into the profession and awarding the professional title.

“Paradoxically, the most qualified and trained are the most regulated; the least qualified and trained are not regulated. This is a mistake. There is an opportunity to redefine what regulation should cover to ensure that it is simple and better, and applies to all legal services.

“Regulation should not include professional standards and conduct, nor entry into the profession and awarding a professional title. In order to drive professional standards, the responsibility needs to be with the profession.”



5 Responses to “SRA and Law Society at loggerheads again over independent regulation”

  1. It must be right that regulation is independent of the trade body. Once again, have legal services looked at financial services? The FCA regulates the firms while bodies accredited by the FCA oversee the professional standing of individuals – see this link to the FCA website https://www.fca.org.uk/static/documents/factsheets/fs018-the-role-of-accredited-bodies.pdf

    Whether the SRA should be a stand -alone regulator or part of a bigger regulatory body has pros and cons. On the one hand it saves money if there is a single regulator, on the other hand a single regulator becomes more remote from the areas it regulates

  2. David Severn on February 7th, 2016 at 12:15 pm
  3. I cant think of one member of the public who has ever mentioned independence of the SRA or any legal regulator as being of even remote interest to them. This is the Kyzer Sossay argument by the usual suspects!! I asked the SRA to act upon a complaint and they spent more time telling me why they were not going to act rather than write one letter and resolve the issue wit the Solicitor. Public accountability? Hmmmmm

  4. Richard Gray on February 26th, 2016 at 2:49 pm
  5. Lets see who of the public were asked and what were they asked?

    I don’t know one member of the public who cared about independent regulators at all. Its becoming a nice little well paid industry if you ask me!

    Publish and be damned I say

  6. Richard Gray on February 28th, 2016 at 9:00 am
  7. In my view SRA Independent regulation will only ever have merit, when the SRA itself is truly accountable to parliament through for example an appropriate select committee investigating SRA impropriety, dishonesty and / or incompetence during the regulation process.

  8. Brian Emery on October 18th, 2016 at 1:32 pm
  9. It hardly matters, the SRA are pretty useless at what they do!
    They still allow law firms to pay bribes to estate agents to have an unfair advantage over other local firms with large firms of panel lawyers with unqualified people doing conveyancing under the guidance of 1 solicitor, what a joke, perhaps Paul Philip should read through the bribery act, if he know where to look, he has obviously not read it as yet, unless he has and is not bright enough to work out what it says, or maybe individuals in the SRA are suspect too?? As for reporting a member of your own firm, SRA offer no support to any individual that has reported someone, and they are slower than a snail on sleeping tablets. Other regulatory bodies should be encouraged, as for self regulation there are not enough honest solicitors for that to ever work, it will just open the doors for more corrupt solicitors to go about their sly untrustworthy business. It is hard to believe that solicitors can self manage their CPD, seriously??? Just a bit more backdating from a desk. SRA should be ashamed of their lack of monitoring of conduct of solicitors, pick CILEX any day of the week, 75% female with 70% more chance of them being honest.

  10. Colin on March 13th, 2017 at 4:57 pm

Leave a comment

* Denotes required field

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

Legal Futures Blog

How do you choose your ATE provider?

Tony Dyas Allianz

Choosing an after-the-event (ATE) insurance provider isn’t easy for solicitors. Differentiation between products and price is not always clear at first glance and you don’t really know what you’re getting until you use it years later. And, as with all intangible insurance products, you can’t take it back. Many solicitors are very loyal to their ATE providers and often focus on price, but this isn’t the only consideration. So, as a law firm, what should you be thinking about when considering who to work with?

November 23rd, 2017