SRA outlines ‘race bias’ action plan
The Solicitors Regulation Authority has reasserted its commitment to transparency in regulatory decision-making following allegations of discrimination against black and minority ethnic (BME) lawyers.
Following talks with its External Implementation Group (EIG), which represents minority and BME practitioners, the regulator has drawn up a list of actions to show how it is addressing issues of disproportionality.
The list builds on the commitment it made last month to commission a case file review to assess whether there is any disparity in the decisions made in the cases of BME solicitors, compared with their white counterparts.
This week the SRA has also committed to:
- adopt a system of six-monthly external case reviews that will assess the quality of decisions made and whether these are fair, consistent and proportionate;
- work with the EIG to organise webinars and events targeting sole practitioners and those who work in small firms;
- ensure complaints about regulatory action are promptly reviewed by the SRA’s central complaints team, which sits within the authority’s inclusion directorate; and
- support EIG members in the creation of a helpline or other support mechanism to assist solicitors facing regulatory sanction by the SRA.
The development comes after the Society of Black Lawyers demanded fresh action on discrimination. The SBL believes the first such review of alleged disproportionality, carried out in 2008 by former Commission for Racial Equality chair Lord Ouseley, was flawed.
SRA chief executive Antony Townsend said: ‘We are committed to working constructively with both the EIG and wider profession towards the shared objective of ensuring the SRA is fair and proportionate in carrying out its regulatory responsibilities.’
Comments
AT LAST
I am glad at last Townsend has admitted that they are discriminatory towards the BME solicitors.
Thanks to Society of Black Lawyers, Mr Peter Herbert OBE there is justice. Till now BME sols are just treated like dirt. White sols are getting all the privileges.
Well done SBL for the great work you are doing. KEEP IT UP.
I hope these reviews are not a sham and are genuine. Who said in a previous article that SBL were racist. They were wrong. It is SRA who are racist.
'Race Bias' plan
"I am glad at last Townsend has admitted that they are discriminatory towards the BME solicitors"
Really? Where does it say that?
PLEASE READ AGAIN
Dear Mr Matthews
Please read again because the whole article is pointing to an admission by Townsend. If they were not discriminatory he would not be agreeing to all the reviews he has promised.
If your organisation is doing fine you would not be amending and implementing changes. It is COMMON SENSE.
May be you are not BME that is why you can not see it.
The article has it written all over. It is implied.
Nope - still don't agree
It's not Mr - it is Ms.
The SRA say it is addressing matters of 'disproportionality'.
I do not think he is conceding the SRA are discriminatory against BME solicitors. Certainly there are problems and perceived issues that need addressing but your comment suggests to me you are saying SRA are conceding they are institutionally racist which seems misleading.
By accusing the SRA and individuals of racism without evidence is quite a serious allegation and in my opinion you run the risk of marginalising yourself by using such language.
Or alternatively gaining huge
Or alternatively gaining huge support by pointing out the obvious.
PLEASE READ
Ms Matthews I do not think you read what has been int he Gazette in the last few weeks or you are naive.
May be you are no BME to have had nasty experience with SRA & SDT.
Please read Law Gazette dated 29th March 2012 where Mr Peter Herbert has done an article where quoted that "SRA dubbed ‘institutionally racist’ by Society of Black Lawyers chair".
"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."
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.
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’.
That is rubbish because SBL have been raising their concerns about the way ethnic solicitors were treated by SRA was being ignored.
So Ms Kelly I have given you enough evidence about how SRA are racist.