The Solicitors Regulation Authority

[Guest]

- by their reputation. .

that is an important consideration. it is often heard, 'went to xyz sols, they were excellent'. but, is not formal regulatory scrutiny. thats for the authorities.

[TWMCADY]

Steampowered, thanks for the reply, could you please expand on how exactly 'they' are monitored and scrutinized for my own clarity. All businesses rely on reputation so that is a given I feel, but exactly how and when is data collected and utilised within your profession for the purpose of examining professional performance and adherance to professional code of practise, and is this available for general consumption?.

[BazzaS]

The legal ombudsman deals with complaints regarding quality of service.

The SRA deals with complaints regarding breaches of the SRA's principles.

 

The LO can refer matters to the SRA.

The SRA can refer breaches of its principles to th SDT for sanction.

 

Both the SRA and LO issue annual reports.

[steampowered]

exactly how and when is data collected and utilised within your profession for the purpose of examining professional performance and adherance to professional code of practise, and is this available for general consumption?

Solicitors have to renew their practising certificate each year and are required to provide certain confirmations to the regulators in order to do so.

 

The SRA occasionally does spot checks of firms to check they are following, for example, anti-money laundering procedures and rules around the protection of client money. I don't think the SRA would normally ask for client files unless that particular client had complained, or a number of different clients had complained about the same solicitor or firm.

[TWMCADY]

Could I please clarify the points above, solicitors and the legal profession are scrutinized, monitored and regulated by the SRA and LO.

[Ganymede]

Could I please clarify the points above, solicitors and the legal profession are scrutinized, monitored and regulated by the SRA and LO.

 

I'm not sure what you're getting at.

 

How should solicitors be regulated then in your opinion?

[TWMCADY]

Please excuse me if this is a little confusing, but all I wish to understand is the question raised, to reiterate : are solicitors and the legal profession scrutinized, monitored and regulated by the SRA and the LO or are there other bodies that undertake this function?

[BazzaS]

There is also the BSB for barristers, since they too are part of "the legal profession", (Similarly: "CILEx Regulation" for FILEx qualified lawyers....)

 

It remains unclear if you are suggesting a different regulator, and if so your suggestion of how they will regulate both effectively and fairly (fair to both professional and client!)

[Ganymede]

Please excuse me if this is a little confusing, but all I wish to understand is the question raised, to reiterate : are solicitors and the legal profession scrutinized, monitored and regulated by the SRA and the LO or are there other bodies that undertake this function?

 

Yes they are by both the SRA and LO.

[TWMCADY]

Thank you for clarifying that point, perhaps I can once again offer my calculated view on these organisations in support of my initial post:-

The LO - is only interested in covering the grounds of processes and procedures, i.e. have solictors followed the correct documented tasks if so, dismiss complaint. Not interested in contributing facts or truths. Their annual report makes interesting reading, 20000 issues raised, 2500 investigated, this does not mean resolved to the complainants satisfaction but 'resolved'.

SRA - Data provided in my first post outlines the miniscule impact this organisation has on any complaint made. Digging deeper, in most proven cases the solicitor in question will only receive a letter of 'up your game', as reported in my initial post. Max financial fines, which never seem to be implemented, are no more than a days pay for a solicitor. Solicitors have no fear of the SRA whatsover so disregard any threat of complaint to them as hot air. The SRA's own charter states - We are here to protect the public whilst regulating Solicitors to ensure that professional and ethical standards are maintained at all times.

One question which legal professional seem to want to answer is, how on earth can you ensure professional standards are maintained if no proactive monitoring takes place, which IT DOES NOT.

 

So the following statement I feel hold an even stronger point now that those contributing here have commented,

The legal ombudsman has very low or even nill impact on the conduct and scrutinization of the legal profession.

[Old Cogger]

correct

[BazzaS]

You still haven't suggested your preferred better option that is:

a) effective, while

b) knowledgeable enough to adequately assess performance, while

c) fair to both client and legal professional.

 

It is easy to state the shortcomings of the SRA and LO.

It is just harder to come up with something (realistic, fair and) better!

[TWMCADY]

Bazzas, please excuse me the full thread did not get loaded for some reason, I did infact offer some alternatives earlier. I feel it would need the will and involvement of people from you organization to achieve this with an open mind. It is conducted in many other professions, medicine, utilities providers etc. all are different and must be looked at with selective knowledge but to achieve an appropriate scrutinization monitoring body I feel is not beyond the realms of you clever people. After all the SRA and LO cost hundreds of millions of pounds a year to support, and that is without the Law Society groups etc. surely a better organization can be found.

[Ganymede]

in most proven cases the solicitor in question will only receive a letter of 'up your game', as reported in my initial post. Max financial fines, which never seem to be implemented, are no more than a days pay for a solicitor. Solicitors have no fear of the SRA whatsover so disregard any threat of complaint to them as hot air.

 

What do you want to see? A strike off for every complaint made?!

[Ganymede]

After a quick Google it appears that from 123 applications to the SDT in 2015, 56 solicitors were struck off the roll and a further 56 received other sanctions – suspension, reprimand or fine.

 

There were 68 Doctors struck off by the GMC in the same year.

 

I think TWMCADY should provide a source for his/her "facts".

[BazzaS]

Bazzas, please excuse me the full thread did not get loaded for some reason, I did infact offer some alternatives earlier. I feel it would need the will and involvement of people from you organization to achieve this with an open mind. It is conducted in many other professions, medicine, utilities providers etc. all are different and must be looked at with selective knowledge but to achieve an appropriate scrutinization monitoring body I feel is not beyond the realms of you clever people. After all the SRA and LO cost hundreds of millions of pounds a year to support, and that is without the Law Society groups etc. surely a better organization can be found.

 

OK, tell us what you are proposing then, and how it will achieve those aims.

 

(I imagine it'll need legal professional input to ensure adequate knowledge of legal matters, as well as "lay member" input to be seen to be fair and representing the interest of the public too), but it is easy to make sweeping generalisations - just harder to come up with concrete realistic proposals .......

 

Where have you "offer some alternatives earlier", other than "an independant monitoring group"?.

Monitoring how (how many firms per year, chosen how??).

 

"I feel it would need the will and involvement of people from you organization to achieve this with an open mind"; "you organization"? I'm not a solicitor (qualified or trainee), nor any other fully qualified legal professional, (nor have I even claimed to be!), though (hopefully my posts reflect this): I do have some knowledge in this area.

[TWMCADY]

Bazzas, many apologize for the delay, I did previously indicate that an APP of some kind could be used. This would ensure that every person that receives or commissions legal services can complete a critique regarding the service they have received, obviously and I cannot stress this enough before someone indicates the scenario of clients losing cases etc. If managed and drawn up correctly this can be made to form part of the code of practice, centrally managed and analyzed this would prevent in most cases long drawn out complaint procedures, reduced cost and continual monitoring of ALL legal services. Whilst this would I know feel alien to the profession currently this is only one offering which could avoid the decline in trust of the profession and lead in some small way to enhanced and better scrutiny of services offered. Firms could be actively monitored and where appropriate contacted passively to discuss any major points of issue, this would be less costly, more efficient and certainly take the emotion out of the whole affair. Giving the general public critical access to formed data would again open the industry up and certainly give the general public some access to what is currently deemed a closed shop.

[Ganymede]

There is already a very strict code of conduct which solicitors must follow.

 

I don't see how logistically your suggestion would work as there are hundreds if not thousands of law firms and tens of thousands of clients.

 

The man power the SRA would need to monitor and review every feedback for from every client would be ridiculous and would cost much more.

 

What other industries have a proactive regulatory body like you are suggesting? I'm struggling to think of one off the top of my head.

[BazzaS]

See previous.

Solicitors are at more risk of adverse feedback than most other professions as a result of the adversarial system (there is always a "winner" and a "loser" to an adversarial court case).

All an app does is reflect the individuals perception : it needs filtering through an assessment (such as the LO system, currently).

 

Publishing "Unfiltered feedback" may not be fair to the professional, or will create pressure for some professionals to become over-defensive or over-pessimistic, to increase the likelyhood of "better" feedback.

 

If a SRA principle has been breached then a SRA report should be made, not just "poor feedback via an app".

[TWMCADY]

As feared you are looking at the negatives not even willing to consider any form of monitoring or upgrade of the service as it stands. If you were to only read what I stated, I stated that whatever was/is to be created and formed must alleviate all of the issues that you raise, do you not think there are people out there who create these type of products all of the time with the help of psychologists, please open up.

 

To say that this is logistically impossible is only to put barriers in the way, this facility can be actioned in the most part automatically and filtered accordingly, by your own suggestion most are vexatious claims anyway so these could be filtered out at the first pass.

 

Do you not consider the medical arena, especially in the USA, use this approach, certainly every hospital or GP that I have visited in our local has this facility in one form or another now.

 

When you say solicitors operate to a strict code of practice now, I agree, but it obviously is not working hence the number of complaints etc. raised, the regulators and their cohorts are not providing a service which is acceptable to the general public, even if it is acceptable by you and your profession.

Edited November 21, 2016 by honeybee13
Paras.

[honeybee13]

Hello there.

 

I've edited some paragraphs into your latest post. Great walls of text aren't easy to read, if you could possibly put some spacing in future posts that would be helpful.

 

HB

[BazzaS]

You keep saying "me" and "my profession", but It's not my profession.

That is "strike one" for puttting words in my mouth ....

I've noted I'm not a solicitor (trainee or qualified), nor an other qualified legal professional.

 

How will vexatious claims be filtered out?, and "automatically", too??

I just don't think your suggestion realistically retains "fairness" for BOTH client and professional.

 

I've not said "most will be vexatious" ("strike two", so kindly stop "putting words in my mouth"), but just noted that there will be a higher rate of dissatisfied clients in an adversarial system .... do you dispute that?

 

I'm very willing to listen to realistic suggestions for an improved system.

It is just that your bias (based on your experience / perception!) is obvious, and you are suggesting a different system, not (yet!) a better one.

 

NHS ; the "friends & family test". The data is anonymised.

Yet, the data goes to the CSU's (Comissioning Support Units) and then to the CCG's (but only if the CCG's ask for it!) but not to the CQC!

So, how much impact does it really have beyond "ticking a box" that NHS England insists is ticked ....

However, it certainly seems to have made you feel you are making a difference by filling the forms out.

 

Perhaps the solicitors should do the same, if they want to give the impression of progress. It won't be the same as an equitable and realistic system that is fair to both client and professional AND makes a difference, without much more detailed work to make it a realistic option.

[TWMCADY]

The comments referring to 'you', me and your profession were aimed not at you but others who have commented having indicated that they are members of the legal profession, so it most certainly is not all about you.

 

I never even suggested this was a total solution, but, a starting point to consider options as I consider the current system inappropriate, yet, all who have commented in the negative seem to want to remain with a closed mind and not consider ANY alternatives.

 

Critiques of all natures can be both functional and informative, when looked at with a closed which is what I am sensing here no problems will ever be cured, it all right don't fix it.

[BazzaS]

All I've said, all along is "give details of a realistic proposal"

 

I'll listen, just not to:

a) vague "it should be better!" Comments (sure, it should, but that needs an actual proposal!), or

b) unrealistic (but more detailed) proposals.

By all means improve the system : but tell us how!

[BazzaS]

After a quick Google it appears that from 123 applications to the SDT in 2015, 56 solicitors were struck off the roll and a further 56 received other sanctions – suspension, reprimand or fine.

 

There were 68 Doctors struck off by the GMC in the same year.

 

I think TWMCADY should provide a source for his/her "facts".

 

I agree.

 

However, the data you have given is numerator data.

The denominator data is trickier.

 

The GMC states there were 236,908 doctors on the register with a license to practice in 2014.

However, this is for all of the UK, and doesn't seperate out Scotland and NI from "E&W".

 

http://www.gmc-uk.org/Chapter_1_SOMEP_2015.pdf_63501394.pdf

 

What if Scottish / NI doctors are more (or less!) likely to be struck off, or more or less likely to commit acts worthy of strike off?.

 

The SRA gives data for the "population of practising solicitors" for a number of different months in 2014.

http://www.sra.org.uk/sra/how-we-work/reports/data/population_solicitors.page

 

This allows us to take the figure as around 130,000.

 

Taking the figure you have given (albeit for 2015!)

57/130,000 : 0.44 strike off's per 1000.

68/236,908 : 0.29 strike off's per 1000.

 

Does this mean the GMC is more lenient than the SRA?

That they are equally lenient/strict but doctors are less likely to commit acts "worthy of strike-off"?

 

Or merely, 'torture your data long enough, and it'll tell you what you want to hear'!