The Solicitors Regulation Authority failed to explain its decision to a complainant misled about a solicitor’s status, an independent review has found.  Senthuran Thirugnanasampanthar had sought a full investigation from mediation service CEDR after accusing the SRA of wasting his time and treating him with contempt.

He had instructed a solicitor in Singapore from 2019 to 2020. Last year he asked the SRA for clarification about whether this individual was on the roll.

An SRA investigation officer wrote to the complainant in April to confirm that the solicitor had not been on the roll since May 2023 but that this had been attributed to an administrative error and there was no information to suggest they had acted unethically.

Thirugnanasampanthar replied to say he was under the impression these dates were wrong. The SRA’s investigation manager then wrote back to apologise and clarify that the solicitor had in fact not been on the roll from 2010 to 2024. Even though this was not permitted, the SRA decided to take no further action as it was deemed a genuine mistake and steps had been made to remedy it.

When he complained about how the SRA had handled his case, the regulator accepted it could have been clearer and taken more time to establish the solicitor’s status.

He referred the matter to the CEDR and has now received its findings. The independent complaints reviewer said it was ‘not clear’ from reading the SRA’s responses that he had been given an adequate explanation as to why the SRA was unconcerned that the solicitor was not on the roll for so long.

‘When it became apparent that the solicitor had not been on the roll for many years, including during the period of your instructions, the SRA noted only that there was no evidence that the solicitor had engaged in reserved activity,’ the reviewer told Thirugnanasampanthar. ‘There is no indication that you had a satisfactory explanation as to why the absence of registration on the roll during your period of instruction did not amount to a finding that the SRA standards and regulations had been breached.’

The reviewer upheld the complaint that the SRA had not taken sufficient action to explain its decisions. This was ‘exacerbated’ by the regulator bypassing stage one of the complaints process with no evidence that this had been communicated to Thirugnanasampanthar.

 

This article is now closed for comment.