Last week’s COLP COFA conference was marked by chords that seemed oddly out of tune with the expectations of its audience. As Elton John might say, it seems “sorry seems to be the hardest word” for the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA).
The first session featured the SRA’s prominent leaders, Paul Philip (Chief Executive) and Anna Bradley (Chair), in conversation with broadcaster Daisy McAndrew. Their message carried a distinct tone of deflection rather than the reflection and contrition eagerly anticipated by many. They reassured the audience that the lessons from issues identified in the well-timed independent report into the Axiom Ince scandal, were already absorbed and implemented.
Yet, this assurance came with a side of dismissal, pushing the narrative that these were issues of yesterday and that the regulator’s eyes are firmly fixed on tomorrow. The SRA has publicly stated that it does not agree with the “headline conclusions” of the Axiom Ince report, nor does it “understand” why the LSB is taking enforcement action against it.
This stance was particularly clear as they addressed several “bigger” live issues rather than dwelling on Axiom Ince: the conduct of lawyers in the aftermath of the Post Office scandal; ongoing debates about whether firms should hold client money; and the potential perils of bulk litigation following the collapse of SSB. The defensiveness was palpable.
The SRA chose the conference to announce a new three-part consultation, including the frankly bizarre “long term aspiration” to ban solicitors operating client accounts and “profit” from interest on client money. There is a lot to unpack there and we will be doing so over the next few weeks.
The choice to funnel questions to the SRA leadership through an online platform, rather than allowing direct engagement from the floor, struck a discordant note. It felt like a control mechanism, sanitising and silencing the immediate and potentially more challenging questions from lawyers who had travelled from all over the country.
At coffee and break-out time the sentiment among delegates was a mixture of surprise, disappointment and more than a little eye rolling. There was a clear appetite for a more genuine acknowledgment of past mistakes from the SRA leadership – not just a breezy acknowledgement that they were all history, nothing to see here.
The legal profession is regulated to uphold principles of accountability and transparency, and there’s an expectation that those who regulate it should adhere to the same standards. These are the foundations of effective regulation. By controlling the flow of dialogue, in a similar way that it holds closed-door Board meetings, the SRA sends the message that it is not open to scrutiny or challenge. Effective regulation thrives on feedback, challenge, and open dialogue. The SRA’s relationship with the regulated must be at an all-time low.
This conference was a missed opportunity. The SRA’s insistence that lessons have been learned without substantial engagement on how these lessons have reshaped their practices does little to build trust or demonstrate that the regulator is genuinely evolving.
Furthermore, the emphasis on unveiling new consultations rather than addressing substantial existing concerns adds to a growing frustration among legal professionals. There is a sense that moving forward without fully addressing the past, or indeed the present concerns, may lead to repeating the same mistakes.
In one workshop session, a delegate pleaded with the regulator to concentrate on fulfilling its primary function and weeding out the bad actors, rather than chasing after shiny new things.
Her comment received the loudest applause of the day.
