‘Limited trust’ undermines SRA whistleblower plan - Society
Whistleblowers in the legal profession do not trust the Solicitors Regulation Authority enough to agree to report misconduct, the Law Society said today.
The Society said there was no pressing need for a cooperation policy to encourage people to report colleagues for wrongdoing.
In its response to the SRA’s consultation on a new ‘cooperation’ policy, the Law Society says the idea would be undermined by tensions between the profession and the regulator.
‘In order for the policy to work as intended, witnesses will need to trust the SRA (given the SRA will give no guarantees until there has been full disclosure). Trust between the SRA and the profession is limited and, while we recognise the SRA has been attempting to improve this, we do not believe that matters have improved to the extent where this policy will act as a positive incentive for potential witnesses.’
The Law Society response also questioned why a new policy was needed before the new regime of compliance officers had a chance to bed in.
Unlike other regulators that have created a leniency scheme, such as the Office of Fair Trading, misconduct was not as difficult to detect in the legal profession, the Society says. It says the new policy offers few extra incentives for witnesses to come forward than the current enforcement policy. In any case, the organisation argued, the principles of acting with integrity should act as sufficient incentive for solicitors to report regulatory breaches.
There would also be ‘serious questions' about the reliability of evidence from witnesses who admit their own part in dishonest actions. The consultation closed last month and the SRA is currently going through responses before finalising its position.
When it was launched in October, the SRA said it would enter co-operation agreements with possible witnesses who might also be in regulatory difficulties.
They would provide full disclosure and, if necessary, give live evidence in a court or tribunal. In return, their own conduct would be dealt with as part of the agreement.
Comments
Outcomes Based Mistrust
The subject matter of the consultation above, and the assumptions underlying it, are beyond parody.
The new regime envisages a step by step approach to regulatory zealotry:
First you persuade two sacrifical lambs to take personal responsibilty for the sins of others, whether the firm is a one man/woman band or has several hundred staff.
Secondly you expose such individuals to the prospect of unlimited fines, which could make them insolvent.
Thirdly you ask the firm to increase the profits of all the parasitic companies bombarding the profession with "compliance" technolgy
Fourthly you sow the seeds of internal discord by disrupting the natural tensions and relationships which may have existed within any firm for years, by threats and/or waving at owners/employees an ill defined co-operation mechanism.
For once the Law Society has got it right, there is zero trust between the Regulator and the massed ranks of the regulated.
We are being expensively regulated in the wrong places, at the wrong time and in a way which is inimical to the survival of an ethical legal profession.
As a previous person has commented on another allied article be careful what you wish for if this state of affairs continues
Presumably this policy is
Presumably this policy is called the "help us and we'll hang you" policy!
Can't think there'll be many takers for that. But for whistleblowers at the SRA, don't worry solicitors will definitely help you.
Come forward now with details of the SRAs incompetence and we'll protect you.
News
And late news in. "Law Society States The Bleeding Obvious Shock".
TRUST & CONFIDENCE!
Solicitors may not like the COLP regime or the SRA, but the nomination process has served a purpose in showing that there are hundreds of solicitors out there willing to mislead, misinform or ignore their regulator, surely this in itself shows why clients need to be protected from those who may do the same to them!
It is unfortunate that the profession as a whole is being tarnished by the few (is c1200 solicitors a few?), but one has to question whether the integrity issues go deeper than just the c1200 identified so far?
Anon
Anon - the corruption in the SRA makes the legal profession appear saint-like. It will all come out sometime soon trust me.
By the way, you meeting Kelly Matthews later for a drink to compare trolling notes?
To Clarify
I neither work for the SRA or within a law firm, I am a legal services consumer who takes an interest in the profession that I pay fees to!
There may be questions over the numbers issued by the SRA, but like in any walk of life, one bad apple is one too many!
I am not a troll and do not know who Kelly Matthews is!
Not sure I believe
Not sure I believe that.....isn't it only the SRA who refer to clients as consumers? Or are you a client of Co-Op Legal?
Not sure I believe
Not sure I believe that.....isn't it only the SRA who refer to clients as consumers? Or are you a client of Co-Op Legal?
Not sure I believe
Not sure I believe that.....isn't it only the SRA who refer to clients as consumers? Or are you a client of Co-Op Legal?
SRA & trust
"Solicitors may not like the COLP regime or the SRA, but the nomination process has served a purpose in showing that there are hundreds of solicitors out there willing to mislead, misinform or ignore their regulator,"
Anon assumes that the figures emanating from the SRA are correct. What a fool, the SRA is a staggeringly incompetent body, their record speaks for itself.
I have every confidence that the figure of 1200 recalcitrants as trumpeted by Anon and the SRA will prove to be a gross exaggeration
Trust and Confidance
Re "Trust and Confidence" don’t believe all you read from the SRA .I have yet to be appointed to the role of COLP , I have no convictions , no disciplinary findings, am solvent , and have 33+ years practice , most as managing partner. Explanations for the delay given so far (even today) include "problem with your registration number ", and "it is all being taken in alphabetical order" !!
The SRA process is incompetent, but rather than admit such, let’s blame the profession instead, heck why not, no one ever fights back.
Report Abuse Reply
I reported a colleague to the SRA 2 years ago. They sat on the complaint for 6 months before I nagged and pushed for them to start their investigation. Even after they started there was a gap of nothing for 12 months Out of frustation I contacted the Director several times. This he publicly denied.
I was was treated as if I was the one guilty of misconduct. No criminal action was taken against the wrong doer and he was not struck off nor fined.
My advice is keep your head down and pretend what you know did not happen. It is not worth the grief you get from the SRA. Nobody thanked me for doing the right thing.
Whistle Blowing
I could not agree more with Andrew on his remark that the SRA make the reporter feel like the guilty party.
Over the last couple of years I have contacted the SRA on various occasions about a particular practice who in my view should not be practising (I am a solicitor - now non practising- of very long standing). On one occasion, I was actually warned that if I witheld information then proceedings could be taken against me- what a way to conduct business.
One of the main problems is that SRA have all too frequently never or rarely experienced the inside of a solicitors office.
SRA
'Judge not, lest ye be judged". The SRA cannot be trusted. They are a misfit of bureaucratic journeymen taken from the banking sector.....or worse. They are trained to persecute and treat with contempt the Profession on which they feed like hyenas stalking the carcass of a once majestic animal. They are a both loathed and despised by all but the naive and stupid and should be kept at arms length.
Blow the whistle on misconduct? It's like leaving stale bread for the winter bird life and finding that all you've done is fed the rats!!
Sra
Having complied with the nomination requirments of the COLP and COFA it was necessary for us to change our COFA as one of the partners decided that she could no longer stand the legal profession and decided very wisely in my view to seek employment outside of the profession.We duly nominated a new COFA. from the lengthy line of enthusiastic candidates..We recieved confirmation that the appropriate checks were being carried out,imagine our surprise when we received confirmation that our retired Partner had been reappointed despite not appearing on the my SRA or indeed holding a practicing certificate.Needless to say this mistake causes some concern but little suprise.
Incidentally the on line system for renewal of the practicing certificate took a fully computer literate person 10 times longer,numerous phone calls than the old paper system.Apparently gliches in their system.
My Trainee has also decided to leave the profession as whilst she loves the work she cannot face the having to deal with the various bodies such as the SRA ,,LSC ,LSB ,.Despite my protestations she doesnt appear to believe that It will al be alright we have the Law Society to guide her through the maze!!!!!
SRA madness
Try and negotiate an RSA with the SRA and see how reasonable they are when you have admitted something-as long as you agree every misdrafted allegation no matter how relevant,agree to pay the costs of the misdrafting and submit to career ruining publicity,then the SRA will come to a deal with you.
Argue-they will instruct a stroppy silk that wants more work from them
The SRA
Speaking from personal experience I can wholly agree with the comments above. I have attempted to assist the SRA but now find myself embroiled in the most god-awful mess imaginable, caused by the dishonesty of one of my former partners. The SRA's motto appears to be 'guilty until proven innocent' and their attitude is appalling.I would urge anyone considering 'whistleblowing' to think very carefully indeed. The attitude of the SRA will only serve to isolate the profession further and the incompetence they have shown in dealing with my former firm is truly unbelievable.
You have been warned.
Society's response
In time-honoured fashion, here is the belated link to the full response of the Society:
http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/representation/policy-discussion/cooperation-agreement-consultation-response/
How to resolve it?
The gulf between the SRA and "the regulated community" has been expanding like the universe. The Law Society states 'while we recognise the SRA has been attempting to improve this' - Really? Where is the evidence for this claim?
On reading the SRA's three-year plan, I can't see any acknowledgement that relations deteriorate still further with every passing day, still less a desire to take any steps to regain the profession's trust. All I read is more of the same.
As the SRA reports to the Law Society, why isn't the Law Society doing something about it?
SRA -- not fit for purpose
How and where can I register a complaint about the SRA ? I am [thankfully] a retired solicitor and have been trying to speak to anybody in the SRA Intervention Archives but all I get is a "we are too busy to bother with you" ......answerphone message where despite leaving messages over a three week period has elicited no call back. 2 or 3 requests for a form to prise a file out of Intervention Archives have been ignored.
I retired in 2008 and my firm was intervened following the unexpected death at the age of 57 of my former partner; who had practiced as a sole practicioner for all of 12 days ! When some three years later I tried to obtain a file where I was the sole surviving executor I was told that the Intervention Archives section had then not fully indexed the firm's files onto its system and it could well take up to 6 months to send the file to me. I gave up in the end.
The SRA is a [bad] joke and not fit for purpose and I repeat.........How and where can I register a complaint about the SRA ?
Complaints about the SRA
I have complained twice, both times by email direct to the SRA and they responded reasonably quickly, albeit both times on the 'phone with nothing put into writing. Just mark your email with a clear statement that this is a complaint in the email ';subject' box and remind them it is a complaint at the end of the message.
SRA
The SRA will never accept that there is any gulf between it and the profession. It doesn't care!!
I note with interest and
I note with interest and unsurprised dismay the comments of those either sick of the law profession or reporting that perfectly competent lawyers have left the profession due to the actions of the SRA.
I am now have 4 years pqe and, although I always strive to be a decent, honest and honourable solicitor, the prospect of dealing with the beareaucratic drones at the SRA for another 30 or 40 years fills me with absolute dread.
Is this regulatory war on solicitors the the SRA's way of culling an already over-subscribed profession? I doubt it, rather I suspect it is the SRA 's way of justifying its bloated existence.
Is there anything that can be done stop the SRA.... please? The Law Society's passiveness is akin to fiddling while Rome burns.
The Law Society position is
The Law Society position is that it is not a trade union. That is what one of their managers told a friend of mine. By this comment not a trade union the manager made clear that the LSoc are not there to represent us. What on earth do they do?!!
Scrap the Law Society. It is wasting our monet and does not help solicitors.
The Law Society position is
I agree.........the Law society has never pretended to represent the interests of solicitors which is why Tony Bogan and myself attempted about 20 years ago to form a solicitors representative body which we named The Solicitors Association. We failed......mainly because independently-minded solicitors seemed incapable of joining together in a joint enterprise; same story with the failure of local solicitors to band together to form Solicitor Estate Agencies.........divided we fall ?
A new Law Society
Perhaps the time is ripe for one of my pet plans - why don't we drop the name 'solicitor' with its unpleasant connotations and revert to 'attorney at law'. At the same time we could start a Society of Attorneys!
FACT:- The Public has no means of redress
I have read all the comments on this issue, and not one of the posters of these comments, has a clue what havoc is wreaked on the poor unsuspecting public , when faced with a solicitor who is more into "unjust enrichment" rather than offering the service that is being sought.
I would like to meet just one solicitor that has been made to walk the same path that many have walked and been deprived of their homes, savings and dignity.
I take on board that the tide is rising and actions will eventually be took against the SRA, but please realise the public will also rise up and it could be far more messy than anyone is prepared to believe. "We" the public are the mass that are continually paying for a lesser service, that has no guarantee if we will be represented by an upstanding and honest solicitor or someone that in a lot of situations does not even bother to turn up for the court hearing that is expected of them.
It is time the public were listened to , and when that first great step happens , then march on and force for a proper investigation panel.
Litigants in person are now in the majority , wise up or ship out
While there will always be a
While there will always be a few rotten apples in any barrel, the point to be made here is that the vast majority of solicitors are honest, good people offering an efficient service to their clients. I do not think the profession is protesting that solicitors who have acted wrongly should not be punished and redress given to the poorly treated client. Instead, the argument is that we as a whole profession (and particularly smaller firms) are being strangled by a vast ream of unnecessary regulatory redtape that is not actually necessary to police the public's interests.
I acknowledge it is possible that a very small minority of solicitors may seek unjust enrichment, but that should not be confused with solicitors charging a reasonable fee that caters for a fair profit after the vast overheads are met.
What is interesting is this member of the public's perception of solicitors. The implication is that we are all luxury car driving, mansion dwellers. I know of plenty of good high street solicitors who live modestly and battle everyday to keep afloat. Of course, the Law Society (our supposed representative body) does nothing visible to combat this harmful and incorrect stereotype that not only the public but also possibly the SRA seems to believe in.
"Litigants in person are now
"Litigants in person are now in the majority"-best of luck against the insurance companies, they'll need it!
You are entitled to be a
You are entitled to be a litigant in person in much the same way as people can look up a diagnosis on the internet and not see a GP. Choices.
'Trust between the SRA and
'Trust between the SRA and the profession is limited'
limited?, limited? *falls off chair laughing.....*
Trust Quotient
Solicitors play a vital role in society by increasing the "trust quotient", so that for instance the vital cogs of commerce can turn more efficiently for the good of the UK economy.
What message does it send out to the wider economy, that solicitors can't be trusted to act ethically in their own firms with the regulator discussing so publicly the notion of whistleblowers?
This regulator is becoming a positive menace.
SRA
I notice John (Edge) that you comment from safe retirement whereas some of us other co--founders of the late and sadly unlamented Solicitors Association are still slaving over our quill pens. I still have the original SA Mission Statement tucked away in a binder. 20 years on and more of the same assails the poor practitioner. I suspect it will never end.
Well, it is certainly
Well, it is certainly lamented now! A missed opportunity.
Fancy another try?
SRA etc
The Law Society is a brand that the Law Society sees fit to let commercial entities brandish around as being endorsed by them (presumably in return for a fee, but correct me if I'm wrong) whilst the solicitors who provide for the existence of the Law Society are not allowed to do the same. Why?
The answer is simple, grasshopper
...it's self-serving hypocrisy.
Letter to the 'Medical Registrar' on FB
See, it's not just us!!!:-
'Dear Jeremy,
Today, in order to admit an elderly woman with pneumonia (who, by the way, is still sitting in the emergency department eight hours after her arrival), I have spent three times as long filling out bits of paper as it took me to take a history and examine her. Cannula monitoring charts, VTE risk assessment, falls risk assessment, dementia CQUIN assessments, drug charts, clerking, forms for bloods, x-rays, add-on blood test form.
Once on the ward, the nurses will have to fill out countless further reams of paper. PAR Chart, stool chart, pressure area assessments, nutritional risk assessments, another VTE risk assessment, another falls assessment, infection risk assessment. In between they'll still need to attend to her needs, administer medications, offer reassurance and personal care, encourage her to eat, drink mobilise. Then there'll be more forms, requesting medications from pharmacy, more documenting, discharge risk assessment score, social services notification of potential need for services and many more.
Now, multiply this by 40-60 for the acute take, and by 24 for each ward. We have four daytime doctors to clerk patients, each ward, if you're lucky, will have 2-4 trained nurses.
Before you start on us, perhaps one thing you can help with is cutting the mountains of admin bullshit we have to deal with daily and let us get back to caring for patients.
There is a reason why a whole hospital stopped working and caring, and it doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to realise you can't just blame the doctors and nurses.'
Sounds familiar???
But, again, the answer to a
But, again, the answer to a bureaucracy which didn't work is.............surprise, more bureacracy!
And, of course, nobody is to blame-its the system! Everyone was just obeying orders!
So has the Law Society
So has the Law Society finally woke up to the fact that their own Watchdog
is no longer fit for purpose and if so what are they going to do about it I wonder.
The answer is probably nothing, the Law Society has made a noise but when
the SRA tell their "masters" to jump they will and there will be an Establishment
closing of ranks. The Law Society is nothing more than a modern day theatrical
company. It is supposed to be the Governing Body, but has become a
dogsbody for the SRA dictators.
The SRA has destroyed many innocents in their quest to justify their existence.
The Law Society know this but is afraid to face any person or persons who
bring the SRA's mistakes or any matter pertaining to the law to their attention.
Indeed the President of the Law Society has a full calender for the next 6 months
according to one letter I saw written by a one of it's minions.
So with a weak kneed wobbly Law Society, a bullying unaccountable Regulatory
authority the Legal system appears to be on the same Magic Roundabout as
the Banks, the NHS and thieving Parliamentarians. Needs a clean up and a
public inquiry to do it.
Unfortunately the legal Press will not touch a real story against the SRA
I wonder why that is?
I am surprised that the National Press do not at present consider the SRA sufficiently
important to investigate. Which is rather sad as there is a legal Watergate in the
making here thanks to the SRA. More solicitors should stand up and be counted
get this wreck of an organisation off the road.
Too much fines oriented Regulation as a car park regime
We welcome any effort which enhances reputation of the legal professional but with reasonable care and regulation. Apparently regulation is becoming too much bearucratic policing that it is becoming impossible fir small firms to function and more so every regulation is fee and fine oriented like parking fines and penalties which means the conditions and restrictions are becoming too much and so stringent that the solicitors right to practice their profession and protect their possession peacefully is obilitrating altogether. The think tanks should look into this now before it becomes too late. The solicitors are being frustrated with too much fee and fines regulation like COFA, COLP, yearly recognition and authorisation it looks SRA / Law Society is becoming a commercial joint a money making organisations like local authorities using parking fines and penalties used for money extortion avenues from citizens.
Let us save our noble profession from it becoming a parking fines and penaties regime.
Stigma of whistleblowing
I was a trainee in one law firm in 2001. Soon after my qualification my training principal held me out as s partner to acquire Legal Aid. I saw some very strange things taking place I alerted the Law Society red alert. I left the firm. After 1/2 months if my leaving firm was intervened and I was made subject of intervention and stigma continues to follow me each time I have to make declaration, PII renewal and pay high price even then I was found by SDT as a man ov honesty and integrity yet I remained jobless because of conditions on my PC. I duffered loss of living and loss of business for 3 years. This is a painful experience.
Regulatory Activism
The continuing controversies over the SRA has made me think more deeply, and may I say fondly, about the former rules based system of regulation.
Chickens are now coming home to land quicker than the turnover of aircraft at Heathrow.
Rules created certainty, and because they were fixed at a particular point of time you did not require at great cost an army of regulatory "case workers" to police them.
Outcomes Focused regulation initially implied "light touch" regulation, a view supported a few years ago by the President of the Law Society, when he spoke about a "delicate legal eco system".However, the reality has been a shocking debacle, with intrusive, and on occasions ill defined obligations foisted on solicitors, the nature of which will no doubt continue to change, since what else would the numerous staff at SRA headquaters have to do?
The rules were there as part of the professional consensus uniting the legal profession.
The contamination of the Legal Profession following the Legal Services Act is becoming ever more apparent on an almost daily basis, with firms retreating into their individal ethical silos thus destroying the cohesion of the profession.
The Legal Servicies Act was a mistake, but its corrupting influence on the standing of the profession has been compounded by the cost and misguided regulatory activism of the SRA treating highly trained professionals like extras from a B movie with its talk of "whistleblowers".
Regulatory Activism. Well
Regulatory Activism.
Well said Stephen Larcombe.
What would the numerous staff at SRA HQ do? They would do what they have always done.
Justify their existence by harassing the little man, inflate minor offences to the level of criminality. Then when they have him on the ropes advise him that unless he admits several minor technical offences the principle charges of theft (of which they have no evidence) will remain on the sheet. If however the "villain" agrees to lesser charges the more serious charges of theft will be dropped and you will not be struck off. Oh yes and creating or refining a rule or two to ensure the 120 thousand
solicitors in the land are kept aware of the SRA power and existence.
No one argues with the collaring of thieves and fraudsters, but when, to justify their exhalted
positions and to meet target figures they attack only the little man, destroying livelihoods, lives and families on a whim,whilst leaving the well established major legal companies unchallenged it is time to call for an inquiry into their actions. There are people cringing in the coffee within the SRA
just dying to spill the beans. The sooner they whistle the better.
Whilst Gus John is looking into the allegations of ethnic inequality in the SRA's actions. There needs to be some accountability into why small companies are singled out, not just ethnic minorities,for SRA scrutiny and SDT action. Often on what appears to be the most flimsy of evidence. The SRA do not challenge the big boys because the big boys have financial backing
to fight back. The SRA appear to challenge the little companies primarily sole traders who are
invariably financially stretched or even when they are not financially stretched by freezing
their assets the SRA ensure that they are. Easy is it not when you have unlimited and unaccountable power. A certain German fellow had an organisation like the SRA,
they were unregulated and unaccountable and equally nasty. As Littlejohn says "you could not make it up". The SRA is not respected. Feared Yes, but not respected. Needs Overhaul.