Report comment

"An SRA spokesperson said: 'If the financial difficulties of a firm mean the interests of its clients are at risk, then we will intervene and close down the firm to protect those interests. "

I think the term is "hollow, mirthless laugh".

A firm that is unable to pay its employees or its suppliers has, by definition, ceased to be properly and effectively managed.

Logically, the clients of a firm that is not properly and effectively managed must be at risk.

So why no intervention?

The simple answer is that the SRA are too scared of the repercussions from wealthy and powerful members of the firm. Far easier to stick the boot into some poor sole practitioner, destroy his practice and then smack him with a massive intervention bill that will bankrupt him and eliminate any possibility of him fighting back.

One law for the rich and one for the poor. It's sadly ironic that the principle applies just as much to lawyers as everyone else.