Paul Philip, chief executive of the Solicitors Regulation Authority, welcomed the taskforce’s recommendation that the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal should move to using the civil standard of proof.
|
SRA the largest of the legal regulators release its own research commending solicitors for adhering to money laundering regulations. Paul Philip, chief executive of the Solicitors Regulation Authority, said that while “law firms are an attractive target for those wishing to launder money, our analysis shows that the vast majority of the firms take their responsibilities seriously and compliance is good”. However, he added a caveat, saying the report was “just a snapshot and the challenges are evolving, so there is no room for complacency”. |
|
|
LSB state that the SRA ‘will need to consider carefully how it manages the risk’ of overwhelming legal firms (and itself) through such a radical exercise as reducing the SRA Handbook to nearer 50 pages.
One common theme arising during the LSB review of the SRA was a concern that consultation outcomes ‘could lead the profession to question whether their views were adequately taken into account’. Various controversial reforms have progressed in the face of strong initial opposition from practitioners and representative bodies.
The sixteenth version of the Handbook was published on 1 April 2016, and all the changes in this version came into effect on that date.
Authorisation
Until 1 April 2016, SRA operated transitional arrangements for the purposes of regulating consumer credit activities. The transitional arrangements have now come to an end and the Handbook now provides for firms authorised by the SRA to carry out some consumer credit activities under SRA regulation, where the activities are central to the delivery of legal services.
The changes to the Handbook:
The main changes are found in: the SRA Code of Conduct 2011, the SRA Financial Services (Scope) Rules 2001, the SRA Financial Services (Conduct of Business) Rules 2001 and the SRA Handbook Glossary 2012.
Changes to the Handbook are complemented by an online toolkit which provides resources to help SRA-authorised firms understand the regulatory requirements and deliver consumer credit services in a compliant way.
9 March 2016
SRA have confirmed that there will be no extension to arrangements providing insurance cover for closed firms beyond the current six-year run-off period.
Any practice that has shut since September 2000 without a successor currently enjoys additional professional insurance cover through the old Solicitors Indemnity Fund (SIF) for any claim made after the six-year run-off has ended. This arrangement is scheduled to end in 2020.
We have been asked to increase the cover for a further three years to 2023, but our Board has decided at its March meeting not to change the current arrangements. Extension would be contrary to existing policy aims, and SIF might not have sufficient funds to cover the additional claims.
Views on the issue were sought last summer, but there was no consensus on the best way forward. Respondents did say that a quick decision was needed, however.
Paul Philip, SRA Chief Executive, said: “We consulted on reducing the amount of run-off cover because many see it as a barrier to closing down, and that’s still something we want to look at. Extending cover through SIF would be contrary to that aim and would be suggesting that six years run off cover is not enough.
“Taking this decision does not change anything, the extra cover will still end in 2020. But this provides clarity for those that wanted to know what we might do.”
No Handbook changes need to be made because of the Board’s decision.
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is set to instruct the frontline regulators like the Solicitors Regulation Authority and Bar Standards Board to get tough with lawyers who do not handle client complaints properly.
Firms should gather data on first-tier complaints-handling processes and also analyse data from LeO on complaints that then reach it.“This analysis can provide approved regulators with an evidence base to develop regulatory responses to improve outcomes for clients.
These may include:
The draft guidance also urges the regulators to share their work with each other to reduce “poor practice” across the legal market. The LSB has published a consultation document
The SRA have written to the House of Commons’ Justice Select Committee seeking independence from The Law Society and attacking the tax on Solicitors to join their union!
SRA chief executive Paul Philip said in an interview with PoliticsHome yesterday: “We think that we should be accountable to the public through Parliament, not accountable to an organisation that represents and lobbies on behalf of solicitors.”
“We have written to the select committee asking if we could become accountable to Parliament through that route.”
Mr Philip argued that “if solicitors set their own standards, it is essentially marking their own homework. We think in order to bolster public credibility the people who set the standards have to be independent of the representative body and be independent of government. Setting standards is the role of the regulator.” See Legal Futures
Helpful guidance has just been published by The Law Society with FAQ’s answered and provides useful information to solicitors when changing from CPD’s and complying with the new Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) scheme for continuing competence.
From 1 November 2016, any solicitor with a practising certificate, wherever in the world they practice and whether or not they are practising English law, is expected to comply with the continuing competence scheme.
The Law Society’s Chief Executive Catherine Dixon has issued a robust response to the SRA.
‘Paradoxically, the most qualified and trained are the most regulated; the least qualified and trained are not regulated. This is a mistake. There is an opportunity to redefine what regulation should cover to ensure that it is simple and better, and applies to all legal services. Regulation should not include professional standards and conduct, nor entry into the profession and awarding a professional title. In order to drive professional standards, the responsibility needs to be with the profession. This will ensure that the reputation of the profession at home and internationally is secured and that England and Wales remains the jurisdiction of choice, and that the legal profession is seen to be independent from government, enabling it to uphold the rule of law.’
The Times published this article
|
Public backs total independence for solicitors’ regulator |
|
Public backing for a regulator of solicitors that is completely independent from the professional body is overwhelming, survey figures released today claim. According to a ComRes poll, 82 per cent of adults in England and Wales back a model in which the watchdog over solicitors is not linked in any way to the professional body. Only 6 per cent said solicitors should be self-regulated. The research – which was commissioned by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and released to The Times – will add fodder to that body’s campaign for the last apron strings attaching it to the Law Society to be cut. Under the Legal Services Act 2007 the society remains the technical regulator, although it is forced to delegate all practical operations and decision-making to the SRA, which is quasi-independent. Paul Philip, the SRA’s relatively new chief executive (pictured), has over the past few months ramped up a campaign for total independence. He claims the society should be forced to stand financially on its own feet instead of relying on a share of the practising fee. Currently about 30 per cent of that fee goes towards underwriting the representative body. The survey found that about 70 per cent of the public would feel more comfortable making a complaint about solicitors if the regulator were completely independent. And 77 per cent agreed that the government should act to force the Law Society to cut the regulator free. Catherine Dixon, the Law Society’s chief executive, told The Brief that wholesale reorganisation of the legal profession regulation was required. “Currently, the regulatory maze is complex,” she said. “There are numerous regulators of legal services and there is an opportunity to consolidate to save cost. There is an opportunity to redefine what regulation should cover to ensure that it is simple and better, and applies to all legal services.” In what some will interpret at the society bidding to claim responsibility for turf normally ruled by the SRA, the society’s top bureaucrat maintained that “regulation should not include professional standards and conduct, or entry into the profession and awarding a professional title.” Legal profession regulation ‘not sound’, claims oversight body The legal profession’s uber-regulator has also spiced up the debate, telling the UK’s competition watchdog that the current system “is not based on sound rationale”. In a letter to the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) yesterday, the head of the Legal Services Board said that “a programme of deregulation and liberalisation [in the legal profession] has reduced burdens on providers, but the underlying legislative framework needs reform”. Neil Buckley, the LSB’s chief executive, said that “progress on consumer empowerment has been sluggish”. He maintained that existing and potential clients “are not driving competition through their purchasing behaviour”. Buckley’s letter came in response to the CMA’s announcement last month that it would be reviewing the legal sector. The Legal Services Board boss will have provided succour to the SRA by adding in the letter that in the view of the board “there is insufficient independence between some lawyers and their regulators” |