It was tempting to think that members of the justice committee had some Christmas shopping to do rather than delve into the minutiae of legal services regulation. How else to explain why a paltry four MPs made it for Tuesday’s questioning of the Law Society, SRA and LSB?
Given the SRA recently failed to pick up on the £66m black hole in the Axiom Ince client account, with or without oversight from the oversight regulator the LSB, you might have expected a better turnout (particularly as the committee chair Sir Bob Neill opened by stating how many solicitors and interested parties had sent in questions).
Of those who did show up, only solicitor MP James Daly showed any inclination to really hold witnesses to account. He began his questioning of the Law Society by stating that ‘many members of the profession think the SRA is doing a very bad job’ (while SRA witnesses still to come shifted uncomfortably in their seats, like a child waiting in the dentist’s reception hearing the whirr of the drill).
Then it was the turn of the SRA’s Anna Bradley and Paul Philip to take the chair. Pressed on efforts to secure unlimited fining powers, they admitted it was ‘very difficult’ to find evidence to support their plans. Bradley suggested that the SRA’s recent £100,000 fine had made people ‘sit up and take notice’ (presumably when the SDT does the same, cavalier solicitors lie back and ignore it). The SRA seemed confused by its own argument: Philip suggested the prospect of the regulator turning up at the door was a deterrent in itself, while Bradley opined on how awful an experience the SDT process was (surely that would count as a deterrent?).
But despite Daly’s best efforts, the SRA top brass barely broke sweat due to a distinct lack of detailed questioning.
Bradley said it was ‘quite likely’ that there would be a cost to solicitors from the Axiom business (none of the causes of which she was asked to explain) but the MPs were happy to leave it there. LSB chief executive Matthew Hill later revealed he wanted an independent inquiry but MPs appeared to have drifted off by then, as no-one asked what the scope of such an exercise would be. Did the SRA fall asleep at the wheel over Axiom? This committee didn’t seem interested.
By the end of the session, the list of issues not brought up included the Post Office scandal, the SRA’s costly investigation delays, SQE, regulation of sexual misconduct and the continued barring of the public from board meetings. Legal charity LawCare pointed out on Twitter that there were no questions on mental health, competence and the new SRA rules on behaviour.
For a first look at legal regulation since 2016, it was a pretty half-hearted effort from the committee - in number and substance. For the largely unscathed witnesses, it must have felt like Christmas came early.
