Not so long ago I attended the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s COLP/COFA conference in Birmingham. The initial topic for discussion related to ethics and whether or not they are relevant. I attended other discussions on money laundering and the SRA’s focus for the future.
I spoke in person to some of the SRA staff about ethical issues and was told to keep writing in when I had any evidence of misbehaviour by competitors.
I had mentioned that there were solicitors who used all sorts of excuses to visit those on remand awaiting trial to convince them to transfer instructions; that there were firms who paid third parties to direct clients from one firm to another; that there were firms who paid clients to transfer instructions; and that there were solicitors who will use their own client to approach other co-defendants to try to get them to transfer instructions.
I suggested that further correspondence on these issues would not be coming from me as I could not be bothered as they did not seem to care.
I pointed out that dealing with the issue required two things:
- HMCTS to report to the SRA each failed application to transfer legal aid so that an enquiry could be made; and
- Where suspicions were raised as a result of those enquiries to seek police assistance under POCA to investigate the financial affairs of the firm and solicitors involved with a view to criminal proceedings.
Clearly, the Legal Aid Agency could suspend or remove contracts from firms who pay for work in this way. That would help reduce the number of providers and would remove the sharks from the pond.
The reality is that the SRA is not regulating solicitors as OFR proves.
Michael Robinson, partner, Emmersons Solicitors, Newcastle and Sunderland
