The Law Society voices strong opposition to the SRA’s new fining proposals, citing legal, economic, and operational concerns.
- Vice-President Richard Atkinson warns of possible firm closures due to large fines on legal aid firms, impacting smaller practices.
- Concerns arise that the new regimes could reduce the relevance of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal in disciplinary matters.
- The Law Society critiques the ‘one size fits all’ approach, advocating for a tailored framework for different types of offences.
- Questions about the transparency and fairness of the proposed changes highlight wider implications for the legal sector’s regulatory environment.
The Law Society has expressed significant disapproval towards the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s (SRA) proposed updates to its fining regime. Criticizing the plans as potentially unlawful and confusing, the Society underlines the detrimental effect large fines might have, especially on legal aid firms. Vice-President Richard Atkinson discerns a possible rise in ‘legal aid deserts’ if such fines lead to firm closures, stressing the broader implications for access to justice and service availability.
Aligning with other critiques, including those from the City of London Law Society and Birmingham Law Society, the Law Society contends that the proposals would compromise the authority of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT). The Society faults the lack of rationale behind undermining the Tribunal’s role, advocating instead for its continued centrality in handling misconduct referrals. The Society emphasises that the SDT offers a comprehensive disciplinary framework which, according to them, cannot be replaced by the SRA’s limited fining strategies.
A significant point of contention is the ‘one size fits all’ fining framework proposed by the SRA. The Law Society has strongly called for a distinct model to handle economic crimes, highlighting the limitations of a singular approach. The existing powers to impose unlimited fines for economic crimes contrast sharply with capped fines on traditional law firms, indicating an inconsistency that the Society argues needs addressing. The Society’s position is that a more nuanced, case-specific approach is necessary to ensure fairness and effectiveness.
Further concerns are voiced over the SRA’s logic for increasing fining levels, especially given the recent setting of these thresholds. There is criticism that turnover-based fines do not accurately reflect a firm’s financial capabilities, often overlooking the liquidity and profitability constraints of smaller, legal-aid reliant practices. This financial structure could unjustifiably inflate fines, thus threatening the viability of such firms and practitioners.
Transparency and fairness in the decision-making process proposed by the SRA are also questioned by the Law Society. The Society urges for external and independent oversight of SRA decisions, underscoring the importance of maintaining open and fair adjudication processes. They stress that the right of appeal should offer more substantial safeguards to prevent unjust decisions from impacting smaller firms and solicitors, particularly those from minority ethnic groups who may lack the resources to contest these fines.
The Law Society insists on a reassessment of the SRA’s fining proposals to ensure they are lawful, fair, and supportive of the legal ecosystem.
