SRA chief shrugs off Leigh Day loss: “Just one of those things”


Philip: We win some, we lose some

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) will not appeal the dismissal of its prosecution of Leigh Day, its chief executive confirmed yesterday as he described the loss as “just one of those things”.

Paul Philip also refused to say how much the SRA had spent on bringing the case before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) and then appealing it to the High Court.

It was the longest and most expensive prosecution ever taken on by the regulator, with the High Court noting that the costs of the case “have become simply enormous – deep into seven figures”.

A detailed assessment of Leigh Day’s costs of the appeal has yet to be held.

All 19 charges against Martyn Day, the firm’s senior partner, partner Sapna Malik and solicitor Anna Crowther, along with the firm as a whole, were dismissed last year by the tribunal.

Last month the High Court said that “dissatisfaction on the part of the SRA with the outcome of the very protracted hearing before the tribunal below cannot of itself ground a successful appeal”.

Speaking at the regular press briefing the SRA now holds instead of letting journalists witness its board meetings, Mr Philip said he was “disappointed” by the decision, but insisted that “we took proper advice [on the appeal] and acted appropriately”.

“We did our job. The case was properly brought. The SDT and the High Court made that clear. We win some, we lose some.

“The fact is that we win the vast majority of appeals against SDT decisions… We lost one, so we move on.”

He was pressed by Legal Futures and others to say how much of the profession’s money the SRA had spent, but repeatedly refused to divulge the figure – while hinting that he may in the future.

“It is just one of those things… The fact is that we get costs awarded against firms all of the time.”

He refused to acknowledge that this prosecution was different from any other. “We’ll just have to agree to disagree,” he told Legal Futures Editor Neil Rose.

Asked whether the SRA took too much of a scattergun approach in laying so many charges before the tribunal, Mr Philip said it had two QCs involved.

But he said the SRA was analysing what lessons could be learned from the case – this will not be published. “That will be an internal housekeeping issue.”

He refused also to publish correspondence with the Ministry of Defence, saying they concerned policy issues and not the prosecution.

“We have policy discussions with government departments on an ongoing basis and actually disclosing private correspondence between us and [them] would impede our ability to speak to government departments over issues of policy.”




    Readers Comments

  • Russell Wallman says:

    “Disclosing private correspondence would impede our ability to speak to government departments over issues of policy.” Maybe that would be better than SRA coming under pressure from Government that they keep secret from the profession and the public. A shoddy excuse.


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.

Reports

No larger firm can ignore the demands of innovation – that was the clear message from our most recent roundtable: “The law firm of the future”, sponsored by LexisNexis Enterprise Solutions. It comes in many forms, predominantly but not just technology, and is not simply a case of automating process. Expertise and process are not mutually exclusive.

Blog

16 November 2018

Transparency is about a lot more than just price

The transparency agenda is much more than the figures you put on your website; it all comes back to communication, the root of so many lawyers’ problems if you look at the types of complaint that go to the Legal Ombudsman.

Read More