The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) avoided the threatened vote of no confidence at the Law Society’s Annual General Meeting (AGM) despite widespread support for opposition to the proposed separation of COLP and COFA roles from those with “unliteral decision making” responsibilities within law firms.
An open letter from the recently established SME and Boutique Law Firm Alliance had indicated it would seek a vote of no confidence in the SRA leadership if the proposals were not reviewed. the SRA has since said it would “pause” implementation.
Speaking at the AGM, Alliance co-founder Jade Gani once again called on the SRA to provide evidence the proposals would deliver the outcomes needed to avoid law firm failures like Axiom Ince: “If regulation is evidence-based, show us the evidence. If it is proportionate, prove it.” said Gani, adding “You cannot repair failures of regulatory oversight by making the regulated do more of the regulator’s job.”
The Alliance, she said, welcomed the proposals to pause the proposals and commit to further engagement. But the damage was done by the “terrible lapse in judgment” that led to the proposals being advanced in the first place. Proposals which, she said, “appear to treat owner-managers as inherent regulatory risks, rather than responsible professionals whose personal accountability is often their greatest safeguard.”
Responding to the debate incoming Law Society president Brett Dixon said the organisation was listening to its members and recognised the strength of feeling amongst law firms, sole practitioners and other members. “We share the objective that regulation is proportionate and evidence-based” he added, citing the Law Society’s own feedback to the proposals.
A statement published by the Alliance the day after the AGM said the discussion had “demonstrated the strength of feeling surrounding the SRA’s performance, the challenges facing smaller law firms and the importance of meaningful professional representation.” It added the membership body remained committed to “securing an appropriately constituted vote of no confidence in the SRA Board.”
A vote, it feels, is necessary to “provide a formal mechanism for members to express their assessment of the regulator’s leadership and performance” sending a message to SRA, the Legal Services Board and other relevant stakeholders.
The statement concludes it wishes to remain represented in the debate, and calls again for clear and evidence-based reconsideration of the proposed Rule 8 restrictions and their impact on smaller firms, alongside greater transparency concerning the SRA’s response to significant regulatory failures; including measurable commitments to improvements in regulatory oversight, governance and public protection.
It may be possible to revisit the no confidence vote at The Law Society’s December council meeting with a Special General Meeting also said to be an option.
Members of the SME and Boutique Law Firm Alliance have taken to social media in the hours after the Law Society’s Annual General Meeting (AGM) to express their dismay at what they describe as a “dismissive” attitude toward their opposition to the changes. Their ire, centred around a description of their efforts as “the sugar rush of performative action”, has caused a stir with members taking to LinkedIn to make their feelings know.
Peter Redmond of Clutton Cox said to “dismiss the actions and views of a profession who are openly expressing how entirely unhappy they are with both Solicitors Regulation Authority and The Law Society as being akin to a child on a sugar rush simply reinforces the divide that is growing between those on the ground and those who regulate/represent them.”
“We know The Law Society opposed the proposals and we know the Solicitors Regulation Authority didn’t listen to the objections and steamed ahead anyway. We also now know that Legal Services Board’s position is that they have no issue with the Solicitors Regulation Authority changing their mind about the proposals and we all now wait with baited breath to hear what the next step is from the Solicitors Regulation Authority.”
Others expressed their “anger” and “disappointment” at the description which was “utterly insulting and appalling.”
