The Solicitors Regulation Authority has rebuffed a formal request for the public to be readmitted to the regulator’s board meetings, from which the public and journalists have been excluded since 2017. 

In a joint letter to SRA chief executive Paul Philip, the editors of the Gazette and Legal Futures, Paul Rogerson and Neil Rose, said arrangements to ensure transparency after making the meetings private had diminished and there was now a lack of openness about how decisions are made.

Philip replied this week that it had become clear that holding meetings in public was ‘not a helpful approach’ and there were better ways to make decision-making more transparent. He said: ‘We are confident our current approach is the right one for providing the public with ready access to useful and clear information about the work of our board, so we do not anticipate reverting to the public board meetings that so clearly proved to be an ineffective way of providing that information and insight.’

The response came as the SRA’s latest board meeting, held on Tuesday, approved the adoption of its own indemnity fund to replace the Solicitors Indemnity Fund. There have yet to be any minutes or an agenda published from the meeting. The only information in subsequent days has been chair Anna Bradley’s ‘reflections’ blog on what was discussed.

Philip said the overwhelming majority of board papers are published, complemented by publishing feedback to consultations, and ‘extensive’ outreach and engagement with the public and profession.

He said board papers are not sent out in advance because the board is the ‘right place to agree whether any papers, or parts of papers, are not suitable for publication’.

The editors’ letter had pointed out that the decision to close meetings was made alongside a commitment to send board papers in advance with an embargo for publication, and a post-meeting briefing with the chief executive, chair and directors. Those meetings have long since ceased, and board papers are no longer proactively sent out. Nothing has been suggested or proposed as an alternative.

While the SRA executive has largely stopped any contact with the public or media, the SRA itself has extended obligations on solicitors to be more transparent and created new rules on publishing data about fees and service levels.

The oversight regulator, the Legal Services Board, has also raised concerns about SRA transparency. According to the LSB’s most recent performance review of the SRA (December 2021): 'We consider that the SRA provides a high degree of transparency in respect of its work, decision-making and accountability, but we encourage it to think how it might provide more.’

 

This article is now closed for comment.