SRA dubbed ‘institutionally racist’ by Society of Black Lawyers chair
The Solicitors Regulation Authority is to face accusations of being ‘institutionally racist’ and of abusing its powers to the detriment of solicitors from ethnic minorities.
In a hard-hitting report to the Legal Services Board, seen by the Gazette, the Society of Black Lawyers accuses the SRA of intervening disproportionately in small black and Asian minority ethnic (BAME) firms while allowing City firms to breach practice rules with impunity.
The SRA said it was disappointed by ‘misleading and inaccurate statements’.
The report, Breaking the Silence: who is regulating the regulator?, was compiled in response to the Legal Services Board’s call for views on proposed equality objectives.
Based on minority ethnic solicitors’ dealings with the SRA over the past 18 months, it accuses the regulator of having ‘far worse rates of disparity of treatment’ than those found in police stop-and-search statistics.
Peter Herbert (pictured), the SBL chair and a fee-paid employment and immigration judge, told the Gazette that ‘the SRA has a track record of intervening on spurious grounds and then gagging witnesses or intimidating defence lawyers’.
Herbert said that Lord Ouseley’s 2008 report on alleged SRA discrimination was flawed: ‘I think Ouseley failed to conduct a comparative analysis of interventions against minority and white solicitors.
‘He could only analyse what he was given based on the assumption that the SRA investigators were acting in good faith. We now have strong grounds to believe this was a false premise.’
Nwabueze Nwokolo, Law Society council member for black and minority ethnic concerns, said that she agreed with the SBL’s findings. ‘There is no transparency or equality of arms in the way the SRA spends inordinate sums of money pursuing small firms,’ she added.
SRA chief executive Antony Townsend said the regulator has been addressing disproportionality since the Ouseley review and had cooperated with the SBL. ‘We responded to their requests for further information and asked them… in December to share any concerns emerging from the survey. To date they have never shared this information or the report with us.’
He said he was extremely disappointed that the SBL ‘are unwilling to discuss their concerns with us, but feel the need to air them through the media using misleading and inaccurate statements’.
Comments
Well done the SBL! At last
Well done the SBL! At last someone has the guts to stand up to the utterly unaccountable SRA.
Peter Herbert should be President of the Law Society and then we might actually get the representation it is supposed to give, instead of betraying its memebers to the CML and other pressure groups.
What if...
What if the SRA was right in its judgements about these law firms?
It is possible that blaming ethnic bias is simply a way of avoiding the terrible truth: that many small firms are badly run and so the SRA are all over them? That a number of small firms are run by ethnic minorities then produces what looks like statistical proof of bias, i.e. a lot of firms run by ethnic minorities appear to be targeted, but this is simply a reflection of the facts that small firms are more likely to be inspected than large commercial firms.
But, what if all the people complaining here really did mess up?
SRA Interventions
I have to say one thing I have noticed about the firms SRA have pursued for rule breaches is the apparent lack of larger city firms on the list of offenders. I know for a fact some larger city firms have been reported for clear breaches yet no action ever seems to be taken.
The SRA only takes on those
The SRA only takes on those who cannot afford to fight back. The "ethnic" firms will generally not be the richest and their clients won't. What the SRA is doing is wiping out firms which will act for the poorest in our society-no surprise whatsoever.
It is interesting that Townsend went on the attack, calling the report "misleading"-which is highly unlikely, that being a trait of the SRA.
Outrage
The SRA are completely out of control. They are clearly targetting BME firms as well as white sole practitioners.
That is such a typically misleading rent-a-quote from Townsend. They are experts in insinuation / downright deception.
"Utterley unaccoutable" are
"Utterley unaccoutable" are words that repeatedly struck me when dealing with two of the large city firms who are on the SRA intervention panel. One of the firms dealt with my Mother's Will and acted as IHT Advisers/Trustees/Executors/Administrators of the Estate (which you might be aware of!) and the other firm acted as their Negligence/Indemnity Solicitors - when we claimed negligence against them.
Other words that spring to mind are: incompetent, furtive, callous and abonimable. There is something very wrong if firms such as these preside over smaller firms and have powers that surpass their abilities.
I really shouldn't... but the
I really shouldn't... but the temptation to rise to the bait is too much.
You sue a large firm of solicitors (or threaten to do so). Because they are insured, the insurers appoint solicitors to represent them.
And you are complaining that THEY - your OPPONENT'S solicitors are "unaccountable, incomptetent, furtive, callous and abonimable [sic]".
So what you mean is that they didn't just pay because Maureen Carroll says so? What did you expect them to do. What would you expect a firm to do if they were representing you?
Domcoop - I had believed in
Domcoop - I had believed in truth and justice but those naive idealisms were crushed out of me by dogmatic nonsense......but as a Litigator (which you said you were) you know what it is like.
Antony Townswend
Antony Townsend has a lot to answer for. He is uncaring, totally unapproachable and surrounded by cronies. He should have resigned long ago. He represents everything the SRA stands for. Who regulates the Regulator... Nobody. I was a sole practitioner who had two forensic investigations and a Professional Service and Conduct Visit. This put such a strain on myself and my staff that my bookeeper had a stroke and my marriage broke down. The SRA were ruthless in their investigation and seemed to delight in prolonging the agony to suit their own agenda. A Defendant charged with a criminal offence is treated with more fairness and respect than a Solicitor being investigated by the SRA who believe you are guilty until proven innocent.
SRA continues to act Ultra Vires
'A disciplinary body who has no set of published rules governing how its investigation is to be performed, is a body acting ultra vires' and has no jurisdiction'. SRA has been acting ultra vires since its inception in its disciplinary procedures. ironically this body is supposed to be governing 'learned people' who should know better. Unfortunately, they let SRA run amock on them. They intervened firms over minor breaches, some of which would have been rectified before they got to the firm. They then left the partners with hefty bills (money for the big boys). They would have bankrupted the partners by the time they drag them to the SDT. The partners would have been too tired to fight anyway. The partners are given another big fines or struck off or both. They claimed is for public interest. The same public, they claimed they were protecting, would have had their courts deadline missed by the intervening firms. Judges are sympathetic Ride on SRA until solicitors wake up from their slumbers.
SRA
Well said Jonathan Lewis.
If the SRA investigates it can move the goal posts at will. No practice will ever be perfect but that is their standard with small firms.
In the view of the SRA there is a 'fair trial before the hanging' I think
SRA response to the article
The SRA is guilty as charged. Mr Herbert OBE clearly hit the nail on the head. It is concerning how my SRA board, staff, and Mr Townsend can carry on in the mistaken belief that all is alright. The true test of SRA 's assertions is embeded on the SDT decisions where the DISCRIMINATION is next to none any where in the world. The investigation tactics that include threats, intimidation,and evil intentions can not be excused by any fair minded legal system. It will be significant for the SRA to let in investigative Journalism such as Panaroma where their work will be exposed because they appear to be living outside of the UK, a democratic society, a society that follow the rule of Law otherwise the SRA Chief Executive will not be defending the systematic ethnic cleansing and silencing of the lambs epitomised in the disproportionate figures of his commissioned reports. How can he defend gagging orders, How can the SRA defend surpression of documents, how can the SRA defend the facts that some solicitors found guilty by the Crown and Magistrate Courts remain on the Roll against those that the SRA accused unjustly. The simple fact is that the SRA conceal documents that will expose their reign of terror. They first of all dismantle your business irrespective of family commitments, render one to the benefit system for life and inturn destroy the life of those families. The SRA use the funds contributed by lawyers to fight lawyers and enrich other lawyers who have a blank cheque to draw from the SRA. The BME Solicitors who have contributed to society are targetted and those who sit in judgement against them have skeleton in their own cupboards .The SRA will note that the evil that men do live after them. The SRA If you have nothing to hide why do you refuse disclosure of documents that will shed light into your claims. You are the one that has given misleading information. The SRA stops at nothing, they even use unsigned Witness Statements obtained un ethically to butress their case. Can some one confirm if the SRA staff are given performance related pay. .
Full marks and every success
Full marks and every success to Mr Herbert for standing up for justice. I sincerely hope that
the Establishment do not wear down his resolve.
Already the SRA damage limitation exercise has started with Townsend complaining of
misleading statements, this from a past master at the misleading statement game.
Why does the Law Society allow the SRA to run wild and make unaccountable decisions?
To control the Decisions of the SDT. To be given financial carte blanche to defend any
challenge to their misguided decisions.?
Is it because they are all three part of the Establishment, with the SRA now calling the
shots.
As a previous comment mentioned solicitors around the country need to wake up and
stand up, the only way to clip the wings of a Gestapo organsization, which the SRA has
been likened to, is to stand up and be counted. The SRA are badly lead and unaccountable
and this is a toxic mix, whilst the Law Society itself appears unable or unwilling to control
them.
Lets face it...
everything is institutionally racist these days apparently. Maybe, just maybe, the firms "targetted" are those who are less than straightorward in their dealings. Certainly in my position I come across many fraudulent injury claims, the vast majority of which are brouht by "ethnic minority" claimants, represented by "ethnic minority" firms relying upon the report of an "ethnic minority" medical "expert". Furthermore, the vast majority of contempt proceedings (as a consequence of proven fraudulent injury claims) appear to be brought against "ethnic minority" claimants - but then again, I suppose the Court system is" instititionally" racist also.
The society of black lawyers sounds like a racist body in any event - doubtless the same idiots who would be up in arms if any "non-ethnic" had the temerity to set up an organisation known as the "Society of white lawyers", just a thought in these crazy PC times.
Get a grip.
Maybe if you'd been a victim...
To Ruben, perhaps if you had been a victim of the SRA's relentless targeting and victimisation or you had the competence to understand that the figures speak for themselves you wouldn't be the ONLY person who has responded negatively to this article.
Your ignorance is astounding. I do not, and I am sure that the SBL will agree, condone the acts of ANY solicitor, regardless of race who commits fraud or money laundering. However, the SRA are targeting ethnic minorities for their own financial gain. Do you really think that they have the courage to "randomly audit" magic circle firms??!! Perhaps if you got 'a life' outside of your own little condescending and ignorant bubble, you would see these horrible, vindictive people for who and what they are.
Why does Townsend ALWAYS say
Why does Townsend ALWAYS say that he is saddened and disappointed? If he was truly concerned would logic not dictate that he would have done something by now????
Oh wait, I forgot, he has done something... he has given the uneducated, discriminatory bullies that work for him more power to do as they wish to solicitors who don't tick the boxes that Townsend and his cronies have decided on. SHAME ON YOU, SRA! You take solicitors money to line your own pockets. Who is going to regulate you??
What is the issue here...
surely if these "victimised" minority firms were not less than straightforward, they would not be found to have transgressed when investigated by this "institutionally racist" body. Accept the facts, those ethnic minority firms found to have transgressed have transgressed - or are you saying the SRA has fabricated evidence in order to prove transgression? Stop swallowing this PC drivel. Playing the race card is becoming very boring.
To Ruben- You are too clanish
To Ruben- You are too clanish to see injustice. As a lawyer your duty is to uphold the rule of law irrespective of colour or other exceptions.Please let us know how many times the SRA has been to your office.The SRA has gone to ethnic minority offices 6 times in one year without finding any breaches. They can turn up within a days notice. They even investigated a two Partner firm with only a secretary for over 12 months with no breaches. In the end they will manufacture charges and go to the SDT and press for a strike out, but will not investigate serious breaches and claim policy change even when the hand book only changed late last year. Ask my SRA what has led to gagging orders. It would break your heart to know if you have one. The SBL are speaking with facts and figures. Mr Townsend knows that he can no longer hide under commissioned reports that are damning on him any way, neither would the Courts and SDT continue to be sympathetic to the SRA. He must start addressing matters and not continue to wait for the SBL to tell him that he has problems in his hands because there is going to be other regulators that will take over and enhance the image of the profession becasuse he has lost his mandate and an enquiry is now required. There is no need to be angry with Ruben because ignorance is not actionable although SRA considers differently. Reuben please read the PERN KANDOLA REPORT to educate your mind on the subject. Those on the SRA gravey train will say differently. Race is boring as long as Ruben is okey. You did not read law to uphold injustice and discrimination. Put yourself in their shoes.
The problem with the SRA is
The problem with the SRA is not what the do correctly which is catch or
attempt to catch the dodgy dealers in the legal profession, it is the way
they do it and the draconion methods they use. But more importantly when they get it wrong and they do get it wrong like any organisation, they go into defense mode and even when
they know they are in the wrong there appears to be nothing the wronged victim can do because
of their lack of accountability and their financial clout. This and the fact that if you are one of
the big boys, you are quite safe.
SRA
The SRA is a largley an ineffective organisation. The minute you make a complaint about a Solicitor they(The SRA) are on the phone to them to inform them of the complaint. So any element of surprise is lost
I hear what you say in your lead article but is it not the case that ordinary members of the public, clients, made complaints to the SRA about the alleged malpractise of the Solicitors in question?
There is one alleged Solicitor who has been prevented from practising, one of the issues being he says he has a University Degree the SRA says he does not, would it not be very simple for this person to produce their degree to the SRA ? Or is that just to easy?
A way to change the SRA would be to recruit the likes of this person who seems to me to be a very sharp cookie and also recruit former Met Commander Dr Dizeai who has a real Law Degree from Cambridge and who is unemployed at the moment and have them working on the cases as robust investigators.
I feel that their are just as many 'bad' white solicitors out there who should be driven out of the profession.
The number of complaints against Solicitors has trebled over the last 10 years why has this happened? Is it greed?
I do not think that there is
I do not think that there is any suggestion by the SBL that "dodgy" solicitors should be immune because of their ethnicity. In fact, anyone who does think that is more stupid than Townsend. The point is Ruben, one should not be targeted BECAUSE of their ethnicity. The reason that you think that this is a load of PC nonsense is, I fear, because you have never had the misfortune of being classed as an outsider in a profession where justice and equality are the foundations. Further, had you ever encountered any of the numerous examples of harassment by the SRA you may think differently. I am very happy that you appear to live in a bubble and cannot see further than the end of your nose. Unfortunately for those who have been affected by the SRA's hounding, their lives have often been irreparably damaged. Are you suggesting for one second that breaches only happen in BME firms or that only solicitors of colour make mistakes??? EVERYONE makes errors, even the undoubtedly perfect you. The only difference is that when it comes to being reprimanded by the SRA, you wouldn't fall under their radar due to the fact that you are not a BME. That is the sad truth of it. Numbers don't lie.
Leave Reuben alone
Reuben smells like SRA defending its own lawlessness
SRA dubbed etc
Townsend says that the SBL have not been in touch since December
Probably still trying to get through on the phone
Trying to engage with the SRA
Trying to engage with the SRA is a total waste of time. They will not engage at all-they will only issue orders. Any purported engagement by the SRA is just that-and always a scam to delay. The SBL has done precisely the right thing in going to the main regulator. Having said which one has little faith in the LSB either.
Injustice Personified
I am not aware of any jurisdiction where a regulator can fabricate evidence, destroy evidence, massage documents, doctor forensic reports, rewrite forensic report, adopt the perjury of their own witness, mislead the court, provide fraudulent and misleading documents to courts, refuse to disclose, provide fraudulent and misleading disclosures, use the courtroom to mislead the court and obtain a court order inorder to suppress criminal behaviour of its staff and witnesses. The SRA should be asked to make public investigations carried out into a recent case involving a white solicitor N and a black solicitor M. It shows the ruthlessness of the SRA and how they are prepared to bend the rules to favour the white solicitor N. The white solicitor N broke all the rules in the book and the SRA chose to turn a blind eye. This is willing blindness-travesty of justice. Justice dictated by the coulour of a man. This case and SRA investigations provide the true picture of the SRA. All ethnic minorities solicitors and justice loving whites should ask the SRA to make available this particular case (the white solicitor N and black solicitor M)
The SRA do not appear to have
The SRA do not appear to have many friends.
Obtaining answers from the SRA is like drawing teeth from an
un tranquilised wild beast. serious questions asked even by Members of Parliament go
unanswered or are responded to with ambiguity, so they really do treat everyone
with the same contempt. Regulation is not for the SRA. They are holding the whip
handle and they will continue to do so until the Law Society gets a grip of them.
Enquiry into their actions is long overdue.
The Law Society actually do
The Law Society actually do something? Good grief, what a novel idea!
If the people of colour are
If the people of colour are crying wolfe, and if the SRA say that they are not institutionally racist let them open their doors for inspection by an independent body, "A clear conscience fears no accusation". We like justice and any one that like justice, but we abhore this institutional racism. We want to be exposed if we transgress but this regulator got it all wrong. They have not denied discrimination they are saying we are working towards equality by commissioning reports upon reports to fool the World, instead of looking at themselves. They strike you off unjustly, prohibit you from working because they have to sanction your employment which is now to be a cleaner, clerk if you are lucky in a law firm , they impose heavy fines on you, you are made bankrupt if you can not pay . They tanish you with "danger to the public"and dishonesty when they are the danger to the public by their own discrimination and fabrication. Some defence lawyers at the SDT say we can not question SRA Strongly for fear they would come to their own office, leaving the accussed vulnerable and suicidal. Do you call this justice.The SDT publish a robust description of the events so that you would look really bad for charges that had no witnessnesses and proper evidence, they are the judge and jury. It is a jungle justice. They convert your misery into money for other lawyers who are not even better in their own firms, your only misfortune is the colour of your skin that they consider as no consequence.
SRA did not deny...
Quoted with aaproval:
"They have not denied discrimination they are saying we are working towards equality by commissioning reports upon reports to fool the World, instead of looking at themselves"
If you have a complaint
If you have a complaint against a solicitor, you go to the Legal Ombudsman. If you also think that you should be compensated, you can sue them in court.
You do not go to the SRA, as their job (which they are incapable of doing) is more concerned with rules applying to solicitors, and legal issues. they are not there for clients / customers to go to.
And you shouldn't sue the SRA in court because the law doesn't allow you to. if the Legal Ombudsman were to fail to investigate, then sue him by all means.
WHY DIFFERENT OUTCOMES FOR THE SAME ACTS ?
SRA's prosecutions at SDT show clearly from published decisions that BME Solicitors repeatedly face more detrimental outcomes for the same acts as their White counterparts. This ignores the White Solicitors completely let off the hook detailed in PearnKandola. You cannot keep having a 500% variation each year and say you are observing equality.
Holocaust had the Nuremberg Trials. The thousands of discriminatory acts over the years need to be re-investigated ,It is time Plant as Chairman, Townsend as Chief Executive and Middleton as Head of Legal Directorate be put before Neuberger as Master of the Rolls and made to pay.
History shows all groups Kingdoms, Nations and Professions that fail to embrace Equality and Diversity in time fragment and devolve themselves into extinction.If no action NOW. Then like the Scottish and Irish time for The Law Society of European BME Solicitors with its own department EBMESRA as regulator. Its easily possible with the new Legal Services Act. It would be the largest Law Society in Europe and being Diverse, Multilingual and Multijurisdictional the most powerful Law Society in the World.
Perhaps it is not racism - it
Perhaps it is not racism - it is 'positive' discrimination for non BME persons!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SRA fails to regulate LARGE legal practices.
That the SRA does not challenge the Large legal practices is obvious to anyone who has given this matter any thought. The Large legal practices are invariably part of "The Establishment".
along with the Law Society, the SRA, the SDT and senior legal appointees.
But BME members are not the only ones targeted, white sole practitioners appear to be hit and
punished with an unhealthy frequency, of course with the SRA being such a devious organisation this may be deliberate policy to deflect from the charges they now face. Balancing the equation
of equality through the eyes of the SRA.
Rule by fear is something you can fight, Rule by insidious fear in typically Establishment,
designed to destroy without any chance of successful recourse.
Maybe Mr Herbert is the catalyst required to open up the rats nest that is the SRA and
get some justice for those over zealously punished for trivialities which the Large legal
practices are allowed to get away with. Which is the crux of the matter.
SRA YOUR DAYS ARE LIMITED
I applaud Peter Herbert OBE for standing up to SRA who have been bullying, harassing and victimising BME solicitors for years.It is about time they are abolished and stop their atrocities against BME solicitors.
One should ask why only one intervention succeeded in about last 70 years and later overturned.
Is there also something wrong with the judiciary system who live in the pockets of the SRA.
DOWNFALL OF SRA/SDT
Ruben is naïve you are making that comment because could be you are not a BME solicitor could be a member of the SRA/SDT. Or magic circle firm. I pity you.
Peter Herbert OBE is a responsible and highly respected member of the legal profession. In fact I and am sure others would be very proud if he became the chief execute of the SRA and Rosy legal directorate of the SRA.
At least we will get rid of racists like Townsend,Middleton and I believe Calvert has already been shown the door.
SRA/SDT has a very comfortable nest running a Mafia who tend to run of their own frolic. WHO IS REGULATING SRA (Mafia)?
SRA/SDT colludes and operates like a licensed MAFIA with the Judiciary in pocket blessing their unchecked illegal act.
Please Ruben go and do some research and then talk. II IS NOT SBL WHO ARE RACIST IT IS SRA /SDT and LAW SOCIETY. As Rene suggested go and read. Read Pearn Kandola. SRA are admitting they are racist.
History will hold SRA/SDT /Law Society’ responsible for their heinous acts and oppressively suppressing thousands of BME solicitors and the directly adversely impacting hundreds of thousands of BME citizens access to justice. This is a wakeup call for Ministry of Justice and ECHR.
Plant, Townsend and Middleton should be personally held to account for the damage caused by irresponsible and incompetent regulation that has financially ruined lives of thousands of Solicitors wrongly, struck off, intervened, suspended or fined. These victims have suffered mental health, marriage breakdown, their children suffering, bailiffs at their doorstep. Some INNOCENT SOLICITORS HAVE COMMITTED SUICIDE.
If USA can have Mr. Obama as President. In England there will be a day and very soon a BME solicitor/barrister/Judge will be the chief executive of the SRA and who better than Mr PETER HERBERT OBE.
It is evidenced in the past that the Law Society could not stomach Mrs Kamlesh Bahl was going to be the FIRST LADY PRESIDENT OF THE LAW and ousted her which shows Law Society/SRA are RACIST.
SRA’s days are numbered and I am counting.
SBL you have done it at last and will soon prove that SRA WILL BE ABOLISHED along with its tamed staff.Their days are outnumbered. WATCH IT SRA HERE WE COME.
Mirroir- what you have heard
Mirroir- what you have heard is a tip of the ice berg. Are you saying that the SRA have not been to your practice. It is either that you are white, in a large practice, there is no vendetta against you,or you are on their payroll. Even if they come to you and decide to take you to the SDT, they will remove the word dishonesty even if you were convicted by the Magistrate Court for fare evasion. or Crown Court for proceed of crime Act. You are very lucky that you are not black otherwise you would have encountered them 6 times in a year. Try and read the factual stories that people have written. Did you read Ms Jones and Maureen Caroll's experience. Their lawyers were not BME. NO BODY IS PERFECT. Have you heard about people recusing themselves, it happened at the SDT so they are not perfect even though they sit in judgement of others. The BME are asking for the same treatment that you have received from the SRA. Human right, the Rule of law, Natural Justice, Equality and Proportionality should be enshrined in the English legal system and not colour,prejudice and discrimination, otherwise you can not point a finger at other nations. Charity begins at home.
TWO RECUSALS AT SDT WITHIN ABOUT A MONTH
It is true that the vice president, Mrs Todner of the SDT had to recuse herself in September 2011. The President and the chairman, Mr Barnecutt had to also recuse himself because of serious conflict of interest in October 2011. However there was no investigation conducted in respect of both the recusals.
It also appears that the Judges and the SDT are being guided by the SRA's counsels. There is serious disproportionality,discrimination and inequality at arms.
The SRA have their team of specialists like QCs,Top city firms as Ms Jones said firms like Field Fisher Waterhouse, Russell-Cooke....whereas the victim is acting as litigant in person.
The SRA's team are known to lie and mislead the court.The Judges rely on their statements knowingly that SRA are lying. The Judges pretend that they are listening to you. However their system is a sham. The law is twisted to the convenience of the SRA/SDT..
The SRA's counsel is also known to have assisted in one case for contempt of court.The Judge ignored it and assisted the counsel.
IF LAWYERS DENIED RIGHTS NO HOPE FOR THE MASSES
If Government, Parliament and Judiciary continually fail to address the fundamental rights of BME Lawyers then what hope is there for BME Masses.
Role of the SRA - ( Dom Coop 31st March )
Comment by DomCoop Sat 31st is completely illinformed.
If a member of the public has a complaint they NOW go to the Legal Omubudsman they previously went to the Legal Complaints Service which was part of the Law Society.
The 'new' Legal Ombudsman is staffed mainly by those same people who worked for the LCS!
The LCS only ever investigated issues relating to a Solicitors poor service / remuneration.
A member of the Public can refer issues relating to conduct, dishonesty etc direct to the SRA - this has always been the case even before the 'new' Legal Ombudsman replaced the LCS.
The SRA public website states that they investigate all such complaints - this is clearly a lie!.
The SRA also claims that they regulate in the public interest - it does not, it regulates in its own interest i.e. those large 'white' practices which fill its coffers!
You try and sue the Legal Ombudsman as a member of the public and you encounter the same problems
Domcoop - Fact or Opinion?
Submitted by DomCoop on Sat, 31/03/2012 - 09:18.
If you have a complaint against a solicitor, you go to the Legal Ombudsman. If you also think that you should be compensated, you can sue them in court.
You do not go to the SRA, as their job (which they are incapable of doing) is more concerned with rules applying to solicitors, and legal issues. they are not there for clients / customers to go to.
Thanks Domcoop - is that SRA official policy now? If so, please advise when it came into effect?
........or is it just your opinion - in which case I am sure we can all safely ignore.
REASONS FOR INTERVENTION ARE A SHAM
We can see here conflicting reasons given by the Law Society/SRA.....that a solicitor's practice is intervened because it is in the public interest. However from what they have told you Ms. Jones is if I have understood it correctly that it is not for the public interest.
So where does this leave us solicitors and the public. I am sure from your experience with the legal profession in this country Ms. Jones you must have lost faith. THERE IS NO JUSTICE IN THE BRITISH LEGAL SYSTEM. IT IS ALL A SHAM.
Once again SRA are twisting the words to their own convenience. So from what they have told Ms. Jones all those interventions that took place in the past are illegal/ultra vires?????????
Or to fill up their own pockets from the interventions. As the Solicitors Handbook says that Intervention and bankruptcy goes hand in hand. It is a financial ruin. Or SRA have made it their business of earning monies by intervening wrongly. Running up a bill from 50,000-300,000. Knowingly they have frozen the said solicitors accounts illegally. Go for a costs order maybe in some cases Interim order. Knowingly solicitor is unemployed, penniless living in poverty. Either make that solicitor bankrupt or go for their house and make them homeless with their children.
As Middleton admitted that they are also using the compensation fund. More like ABUSING.
Judges do not care a damn about the solicitors financial position and make the costs order so SRA can go and enforce them. Money making machine.
I have seen Townsend drive Aston Martin at whose cost????May be living in some mansion.
There are no rules for SRA. When parliament gave SRA the powers I am sure they did not know that they have created a "Mafia". It is about time parliament intervenes.
I think recently Mr David Cameron was talking to Mr Obama about justice in British Courts. If only Mr Obama knew WHAT BRITISH LEGAL SYSTEM. IT IS SHAMBLES.
These SRA and the judiciary seem to belong to some club. A closed shop where favours are done.
This is how SRA have survived for so long committing all these criminalities without fear because they know they have the judiciary supporting them.
SRA have killed a lot of innocent solicitors. I must say they are worse than Hitler. At least Hitler did his crimes openly. But the SRA they are doing it behind closed doors.
IT HAS TO BE STOPPED. SBL are going to get us justice. THE EVIL MUST COME TO AN END. THE TRUTH WILL PREVAIL.
My SRA why dont' you conduct
My SRA why dont' you conduct a survey of all the solicitors in England & Wales both white and black to find out whether they have faith in your work, whether they want you to regulate them, and whether they consider you fit for purpose. You will receive a resounding vote of NO CONFIDENCE even from the public. Those who would differ are those that directly and indirectly benefit from your work. "suspicion of Dishonesty".The same word that you remove from serious charges amounting to theft during SDT hearings, and even from the charges that you bring against certain solicitors when you are rigging the election. You do not requre Pern Kandola Report, or any report for that matter. It is hightime for solicitors to demand what you do with the funds that you collect from them. It is financially and morally wrong to apply their funds with total disregard. The money you are wasting can keep law Centres open and provide access to justice to the same public that you claim to be protecting. Most of them do not have legal representations more often than not. The cost of intervention initiated on "suspicion of Dishonesty" never mind the consequences for the intervened lawyer because you do not give a damn. What public interest -questionable.
Natasha
Natasha, I thought that you might also be interested to know that because the LCS/SRA refused to investigate any of the issues I raised in relation to dishonesty/misconduct I asked the police to intervene.
The police contacted the LCS/SRA and received an assurance from them that these issues would be investigated.
The LCS/SRA informed the Police that they had the right people in place to conduct this type of investigation and that they would do so as a matter of course,
However once the Police ceased to be involved the LCS/SRA again refused to investigate.
Having read the comments from other solicitors on this page I am reassurred that not all solicitors are as corrupt as the firm I instructed.
However, I am also more convinced than ever that the Law Society/SRA is totally corrupt.
My experience has also left me acting in person against the Home Offfice which is a completely daunting experience but better that than having another solicitor to represent me who turns out to be just another con-man in a suit, particularly as I was given the name of the last one by the Law Society.
Good Luck to all of those many decent solicitors whose comments on this page have been helpful to me and no doubt others, who have been similarly let down.
The SRA Chief executive
The SRA Chief executive stated that "He is disappointed with misleading and inacurate statements" Does he still say that I wonder.His defence mechanism.
Report
I'd like to read the report before commenting, but it doesn't seem to be available on the SBL website.
Leaving aside the race issues, there are some general points which need to be made about interventions. Intervening in a practice usually spells the end of that practice - at the very least, it frequently causes huge damage to the practice and the solicitor(s) running it. Challenging a decision to intervene is costly and unlikely to be successful. The usual reason for intervening in a practice is that there is a suspicion of dishonesty and the effect of an intervention is to put the practice bank accounts under the control of the SRA.
An intervention is therefore similar to an injunction, in that it stops the practice in its tracks. In the circumstances, mechanisms should be put in place to ensure that (a) the decision to intervene is subject to judicial scrutiny (if necessary, on an ex parte basis) before the intervention actually takes place, (b) the SRA is subject to a duty of full and frank disclosure when applying for judicial approval of a proposed intervention and (c) the SRA gives an undertaking in damages (so that a solicitor has a means of redress in the event that the intervention turns out to have been unsupportable).
"truth will
"truth will prevail".
No-power prevails-and the SRA has it.
Judicial scrutiny.
I like the idea of judicial scrutiny before any Intervention can take place.
I like the idea that the SRA have to fully openly justify their actions.
I like the idea of compensation when they get it wrong.
In a nutshell I like the idea of accountability, something the SRA know nothing
about.
If these things were done in retrospectively then the judicial system would
have a bigger debt than Greece.
So the Establishment will put up the shutters the rants will go on and the
cowed majority will shiver in silence awaiting the Knock.
Time for all you 120,000 solicitors to wake up and be counted before they
are completely out of control.
What should happen is that
What should happen is that the Law Society Council (or if necessary, the entire membership) should pass a motion of no confidence in the Board of the SRA.
The Council, of course, does not have the guts to do so and the membership are too apathetic (until they are picked off one by one). The President, who should be picking up the mood of the members is only there by Buggins turn and is clueless as to his real responsibilities. He does of course get nice trips abroad.
The leadership of most "representative" bodies in this country seem to have this problem of disconnect from the people they purport to represent. Possibly it becomes endemic in all such bodies when they have become "establishmentised".
The SBL appears not to suffer from this malaise. The leadership are intent on not allowing their members to be victimised-and also they are politically astute because the LSB must take their complaint seriously or face the same allegation itself. The leaders of quangos do not like to have such allegations against them because it will preclude them from similar lucrative positions in the future. The press would almost certainly pick this one up.
It is quite obvious that the Law Society should have some-one like Peter Herbert as its President. I would vote for him-and by defintion I don't qualify for membership of the SBL-but he is precisely the sort of person needed.
Natasha Thank you for your
Natasha
Thank you for your comments.
My dispute with the Home Office was not in relation to an immigration issue.
My son Iain was killed in a 'Hit & Run' incident and I needed legal assistance in relation to problems I had encountered with the Probation Service/Home Office, as those responsible had been on licence/bail at the time of the incident.
I was being refused any information regarding what had occurred so I needed legal assistance.
I contacted the Law Society for names of suitable solicitors hence, I ended up with the con-man in the suit from Bristol referred to previously.
Given my initial reason for instructing the firm of solicitors in Bristol what does it say about a solicitor that accepts instructions and in eighteen months of representation does not even read the file of documents that I gave him and just keeps making excuses for his lack of progress.
Then the con-man gives you a bill for almost £5,000 having achieved absolutely nothing.
In such circumstances I view this particular firm as being the lowest of the low.
As are those who falsely claim to have regulated them - the Law Society/SRA!
ITS A UNLAWFUL SCAM-MEGA PAY/JOBS FOR LIFE/SPORTS CARS
SRA Published figures for 2010 (at sra.org.uk equality-diversity-monitoring) not surprisingly show whilst only 12% are BME Solicitors. The selected for kill (new investigations) records show 27% are BME Solicitors a variance of 225%. Butchered (intervened) records show 38% were BME Solicitors a variance of 317%. On empirical evidence any right minded expert statistical opinion would without doubt state that "one can say with 99.9% confidence that SRA are institutionally racist".
SRA's Unequal (Prohibited) Acts are clearly by reference to Race(Protected) characteristic and unlawful.Additionally, SRA's Insatiable appetite is also driven by the fact that the £50 million annual budget needs a £10 million extra from the illegal hauling to finance unjustified six figure salaries and jobs for life (some for overs 25 years) for persons otherwise unemployable and from the Castle car parks you would think you had driven to the millionaires club.by mistake.
In the Public Interest the executives must me asked to pay back all the monies personally and if it means no subscription fees for 5 years all the better for cheaper access to justice.
Ms Jones if the con-man in a
Ms Jones if the con-man in a suit was a BME Solicitor he would have been investigated by the SRA and struck off even if it meant the SRA travelling round the World, UK and producing unsigned witness statement obtained under duress three years after the client received services and never brought any complaint.The SRA has to justfy their existence by harassing and discriminating against BME lawyers. The SATANIC and demonic regulation that has produced nothing but injustice, disproportionality, discrimination, disaffection, loss of livelihood, family break down, distrust, bankrupcy, loss of accomodation, Depression, disposession,and ill health will never go un noticed by the World that is now watching this regulator. Let SRA say why they have not visited every solicitor's firm in the Country irrespective of colour and other considereations. Those people that have caused these hardships to BME lawyers have blood in their hands. All those people that have benefited from the tears and misery of BME lawyers have enjoyed blood money. Well done to those lawyers defending BME lawyers without fear or favour. You will prosper and grow old gracefully, your families and children will prosper. "Absolute power corrupt absolutely"
Anon, I agree with you
Anon, I agree with you 100%.
All of the solicitors provided for me by the Law Soc. when I first contacted them, were from large, white practices.
For those on this site who have suggested that perhaps those BME Solicitors who are claiming discrimination are just playing the 'Race Card' I know for a fact that they are completely wrong.
I am white and from a so called 'middle class' background - privately educated etc..
As a result of the SRA's own solicitors having sent my files to the wrong claimant and vice versa I had the opportunity to read the forensic report etc on a BME solicitor who had actually been struct off for what was effectively a very minor mistake.
Whereas the solicitor who had represented me for over 18 months had apparently committed serious misconduct and possibly even fraud, according to the police, yet the SRA would not investigate any of these issues - despite there being numerous pieces of documentary evidence available.
As a result of the SRA's mistake with my files I have been in contact with the Solictor from the BME who had been struck off and I have provided her with witness statements, documentary evidence etc and will continue to provide her with as much support as I can.
The Law Society and SRA are a Disgrace!
If they are not institutionally racist as they claim then they are institutionally corrupt otherwise they would have investigated the solicitor I complained about!
Good Luck to you all!
harresment and slander by the police and law enforcement agency
dear sir i am being harrest by the police and put on thair nactional dater base that im a gun runner to which i get the chopper up over me as soon as i step out side my front door .i do have proof of this
barrister who would deal with
barrister who would deal with issue againts the police
SRA report
A tradesman blames his tool springs to mind (being that season and that...). One cannot lay a blame at an organization that is merely there to regulate or officiate misconduct or a complaint, to do so is to fundamentally misunderstand the very essence or the nub of the matter which Mr Herbert seeks to persuade us, namely what Lord Mcpherson cushioned as 'institutional racism'
At the heart of the issue is the disparity in the profession between lawyers in the composition or representation in the of top law firms and those at the lower end of the profession, in that the top firms typically comprises of predominantly white, male background in contrast to the lower end comprising of predominantly ethnic minority backgrounds who appear to bear brunt of complaints. That I suspect is the issue to which Mr Herbert complaints about indirectly and he should be upfront about it, rather then having a go at another ethnic minority and respected champion legal advocate, who happens to disagree with him.
Until root and branch recruitment and fair selection in the profession is addressed and tackled this issue of 'institutional racism' will not go ahead. I would submit for that to happen and institutions to be truly reflective of society (do not know if that is the ultimate objective) as one single aim then, it must reflect it's work force, for institutions do not speak or represent themselves.
.
veil and crown court judge
I think shame of the senior judge who dismissed a juror for no apparent reason then simply that the veil clashed with his frock.
I cannot see any issues, threats or otherwise for this ridiculous swipe at a minority violating her civil liberties and undermining very many issues at the forefront of an apparent swipe at all things 'Islamic' in view of the so called war on terror. As I have argued elsewhere the juror should lay a complaint under the HRA for violation of her civil liberties under the various ECHR articles. This is unless the judge can objectively say that his decision was proportionate, balanced and in the interest of national security, morals, or for the protection of the rights of others- in what way is this interfering with defendant's rights- a juror is not required to answer any questions at the courtroom, her only duty is to deliberate at the private jury room?.
This is a slow step and a veiled attack on all our liberties; whatever next go the way of France ban veil in the street, ban halal food, ban Friday prayers and Islamic garments too. And soon support the marchers as the EDL in ousting all muslims out of europe I dare say...no further comment.
Fred Bach- you should
Fred Bach- you should understand that complaints are not only levelled at Small ethnic minority firms. The so called complaints are never disclosed. Ethnic minority firms have repeatedly asked for the complaints to be made available to them and this regulator conceals this so called complaints because there are none. There are complaints channels if there are complaints. Have you asked your self why this Regulator commission reports that produce astronomical figures of disproportionality in regulation Figures do not lie as some one said earlier. Mrs Jones have told us her experience with big firms and the response she got from the Regulator. Let the Regulator open her doors to panaroma you will be surprised at what you will discover. Commentators have commented from a position of experience and not hearsay. SBL did the right thing. Ask why there were recusals at the SDT. Research before you talk
Defamation, Truth and Fred Bach correct 1 out of 2
First of all, people and law gazette should be careful to avoid defamatory comments on here e.g. FFW.
Secondly, the truth is that those firms, BME or not, investigated did actually commit some sort of breach in the first place and it didn't just appear before the SRA by magic. It could've been a complaint or tip-off, who knows. However, the other side of the coin,which this article deals with is that these firms end up wound up and solicitors struck off and insolvent in the end. Now that is the problem and statistics show BME solicitors disproportionally make up the figures when there are less of them in the profession in the UK and more importantly, in the top firms.
Fred, the veil is not relevant, diversity in profession is
Fred, as to my initial comment above (Defamation ....) you're right with the lack of BMEs in medium & large firms (or the root causes) but am afraid I don't know what the veil has got to do with any of the salient points in this article.
The root problem and fact is that the door into the legal profession in the UK over the last 10 years have become more closed/discriminatory than ever. So let's not be deceived by the current BME solicitors/lawyers (in positions of power e.g. Baroness Scotland and even Mr Herbert) because it seems better in their days and I'm not sure where the next generation/younger BME lawyers will come from. When the economy is bad, the vulnerable/minority in societies tend to bear the brunt.
Quote me: "you're more likely to see a BME as a security guard for the medium, large or city firms than as a partner or even associate in those firms".
With the above in mind, why is it surprising that BMEs will go to any length to qualify as a solicitor, even if means receiving little or poor training - at BME firms? Sadly, generally, BME firms do not have the funds to train young bright BME graduates who want to fulfil their dreams of being qualified and this desperation drives these graduates to slave along just to qualify in the end.
When they qualify by whatever means, these same graduates, with more experience & hardwork ethic than their counterparts, find it impossible to get into the medium/larger firms (& we know who run them). So what do you expect them to do? Obviously, they've got the certificate and they'll go along to their own (since they were rejected by others), join the BME firms or even set up their own, then everything is segregated and the cycle continues. The more concentrated the BMEs are in the profession, the more they're targeted and this affects equality and diversity generation after generation.
Saying that the legal profession in the UK is like apartheid is not that harsh to be honest.