I wonder how many COLPs and COFAs answered the ‘suitability test’ correctly? The form on page two asks the question ‘have you ever been convicted of a criminal offence not falling within section 1.1?’

The Solicitors Regulation Authority confirmed to me that any speeding conviction in the last five years would require the answer ‘yes’. But any conviction which was ‘spent’ under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 would not have to be mentioned and the answer ‘no’ could properly be given.

The form warns that if you have answered ‘yes’, the SRA is more likely than not to refuse the application unless there are exceptional circumstances. Consequently, you would be ‘suitable’ if you had gone to prison over 10 years ago (but not for an offence detailed in section 1 and not for more than 30 months), but unsuitable if you had been caught speeding in the last five years.

Is it too much to ask for the SRA to frame the question properly?

Not ‘have you ever’ but ‘have you been convicted by a court of a criminal offence not falling within section 1.1 above, which conviction is not "spent" under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974?’ And perhaps speeding offences for which not more than three penalty points were awarded need not be mentioned.

Also, most people would accept that the offences listed under section 1 should be the subject of investigation.

But if the SRA accepts that convictions that are ‘spent’ need not be mentioned, then an applicant who has a conviction for fraud over 10 years old, for which the applicant received a prison sentence not exceeding 30 months (and that would include quite serious offending), need not mention that conviction and, on the face of things, be suitable. By contrast, a solicitor hurrying home exceeding the speed limit would potentially not be.

Fortunately, I can answer ‘no’ with the assistance of the 1974 act. But I suspect many will not be so lucky.

Richard L Griffiths, Richard Griffiths & Co, Salisbury, Wiltshire