Online: SRA changes to combat disinformation
The Legal Services Board (LSB) has approved plans by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) to change its publication policy and keep details of misconduct on its website for longer.
The changes, updating a policy dating back to 2007, mean that details of the more serious fines imposed on law firms will stay online for 10 years, and five years for individuals, rather than three as now.
For less serious fines, it will be five and three years respectively.
In its application for approval, the SRA explained that fines imposed on law firms would be published for longer because they represented the most serious sanction for them, unlike for individuals who could be suspended or struck off.
Suspensions will stay online for 10 years, and interventions into law firms for five years, rather than three as now. Strike-offs will continue to be published indefinitely.
The SRA announced these moves in February 2023 following a consultation but – after the LSB confirmed that it would need to approve the changes, even though they are being made to guidance and not rules – the application was only made in September 2024.
The majority of SRA decisions are currently kept on its website for three years, although those with restrictions lasting longer are kept in the public domain for that period – or indefinitely for strike-offs. The SRA recommended increasing them in some cases to combat misinformation online.
The SRA estimated that around 20% of the 660 or so decisions it typically made in a year would be published for a longer period of time as a result of the new approach, and “only very few decisions” for a shorter time.
It told the oversight regulator that all decisions would be published for a minimum of three years in recognition of the fact that “even low sanctions, such as rebukes and reprimands, are only issued where a serious breach has occurred”. This also included fixed-penalty fines for non-compliance with administrative requirements.
Sanctions published under the current rules will not be affected.
In its decision notice, the LSB acknowledged that the purpose of the new approach was to “more closely link the publication period with the severity of the sanction”.
The LSB said the SRA was not concerned by the possibility that disciplinary decisions may remain “digitally available” after the end of the publication period.
The SRA was “aware that those affected have been able to make requests to Google, news websites, and others who may host this content and ask for it to be removed”, citing the data subject’s ‘right to be forgotten’ under article 17 of GDPR.
“While regulators are not responsible for the content of external sites, the LSB notes that making such a request may not be a straightforward or successful process.”
A decision to publish a regulatory or disciplinary ruling could be appealed to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal.
Where there were “exceptional circumstances”, such as publication affecting the health or safety of an individual, or presenting a risk to life – it could be withheld.
The SRA could also amend or remove decisions “where we consider that publication is no longer necessary in the public interest, or to correct or update the information”.
The LSB referenced the long-standing issue that Black, Asian and minority ethnic and male solicitors were overrepresented in the SRA’s regulatory work, along with recently published independent research that said its assessment processes were not the cause.
In response, the SRA is planning a raft of measures, “more effective tailoring of compliance and support materials” to smaller firms and guidance for SRA staff on handling “complex borderline cases”.
In approving the application, the LSB said it expected the SRA to “monitor the impact of mitigating actions on the representation of individuals with protected characteristics in its disciplinary processes and to update the LSB on the outcomes of its monitoring during regular relationship management conversations”.
Leave a Comment