SRA to reconsider misconduct report decision
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has withdrawn its decisions not to investigate a solicitor after being threatened with a judicial review. The threat came from Edward Romain, the founder of Blind Justice, a charity that supports litigants in person.
Mr. Romain had made a report about a solicitor, which the SRA initially decided not to investigate. After he raised further points and asked for reconsideration, the SRA eventually decided again not to investigate.
In a formal response to Mr. Romain’s letter before action, the SRA accepted that it had treated his report “as being narrower in scope than it actually was”. The SRA also acknowledged that its enquiries between the two decisions were not detailed enough.
Mr. Romain stated that the SRA initially dismissed his report without questioning the solicitor involved. Only after he challenged this decision did the SRA seek further explanation from the solicitor.
The SRA has agreed to withdraw both decisions and reconsider the report. The reconsideration process will be completed by a decision maker who was not previously involved, and the SRA will provide reasons that address each element of the report.
Read Also: Google settlement lawyers agree to £12m payout
The rules of the SRA do not grant individuals who file misconduct reports the right to request a review of the regulator’s decision. Instead, the SRA retains the discretion to decide whether to review such cases.
Mr. Romain, an associate member of the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives, described his success as a significant win for accountability. However, he expressed concern for ordinary individuals who face flawed decisions but lack the resources or knowledge to challenge them in court.
Georgina Halford-Hall, chief executive of WhistleblowersUK, which supports the judicial review, said that litigants must be able to rely on the advice they are given. She added that too many whistleblowers find themselves treated as cash machines by unethical firms, which exploit their clients’ vulnerability in the full knowledge that a complaint to the regulator is unlikely to get more than a cursory glance before it is dismissed.
Mr. Romain clarified that he is not advocating for disciplinary action in every solicitor report. Instead, he calls for decisions based on thorough inquiries, proper evidence evaluation, and transparent reasoning. The SRA has acknowledged that these standards were not met in his case.
