Solicitors Regulation Authority chief Paul Philip walked into a bit of a lions’ den this week. The House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee (no, we hadn’t heard of it either) was holding an ad hoc evidence-gathering session on ‘lawfare and free speech’ and seemed anxious to cast the SRA as the bad guy.

It kicked off with questions about why the SRA took until last year to get interested in so-called SLAPP cases. ‘Lawyers’ conduct in litigation is a long-running issue,’ Philip protested.

Neither was the committee impressed with the SRA’s new £20,000 fining power. ‘That doesn’t sound very much,’ said chair Baroness Stowell of Beeston (one-time Number 10 press officer Tina Stowell). ‘Three months ago the maximum was £2,000,’ Philip noted. ‘Wow,’ the baroness responded.

‘You don’t get a cup of coffee from Mishcon de Reya for £20,000,’ Lord Lipsey (former newspaper editor David Lipsey) helpfully interjected (it is very good coffee, to be fair).

So what do lawyers think of their regulator, Stowell continued. ‘Are they worried about you knocking on their door?’

‘If we knock on their door, they’re worried,’ Philip replied with (just about) a straight face. ‘I don’t imagine we’re very popular with the profession.’

But shouldn’t the SRA be doing more to put the fear of God into the profession? ‘Do you have a press office?’ Lipsey asked. Is it spreading the word about what happens to naughty practitioners? ‘We have an active press department and routinely publish decisions,’ Philip said. But there was no need to crow about individual cases. ‘Our experience is that the press are pretty quick to pick up these outcomes.’

So, to judge by online readership figures, are Gazette readers. But Philip didn’t say anything about that. Wisely, he thanked the committee for a ‘very useful’ session and took his leave.

Topics