SRA planning surprise diversity swoops

Proof positive, if ever it were needed, that the lunatics have taken over the asylum.

This really is entertaining.

So the organisation accused of racism is going to check up on everybody else to make sure they aren't racist. And the President, being politically correct, (a requirement of the job) says it's a jolly good thing too.

Satire has been surpassed by reality.

They'll be meet mostly by a sea of white faces, oxbridge and Cambridge types and Russell Group educated people with the odd ethnic as the paralegal with no career ladder or stuck in administration.

I'm sure that the powers that be will mostly visit PI firms which recruit law graduates from all walks of life and trap them into paralegal jobs handling fast track pi claims as a way of distorting their findings and creating the impression that there's diversity in law.

The training contract is the profession’s way of ensuring that law remains a closed shop and it's only in the USA that true diversity and progression can take place and that you can be rewarded for hard work, initiative and drive. Just look at Michelle Obama as an example.

Lena

Lawyers are trained to think - they are not trained to be racists.

In recent years I have employed a black lawyer, a gay lawyer, an asian trainee and now I am now about to employ a British born Chinese.

The ehtnic make up of the law has changed since say 20 years ago and the debate about the SRA is best served by steering clear of outdated views on racism in the UK

My wife's auntie was American and take it from me the USA has nothing to teach the UK on tolerance of different ethnic groups

I have just completed the survey and think it won't please anyone as you can just say "prefer not to say" to all the questions. You can complete the survey more than once as well. I said I was a single mum so my firm should get good stats! Honestly how much are they spending on this exercise. If they wanted meaningful results they should have made it compulsory.

I can't find evidence anywhere on either the LSB or SRA websites which shows that answering the questionnaire is mandatory as alleged in the SRA's round-robin email. In fact, the LSB has produced some outcomes which the SRA has to achieve. It is a matter for the SRA how it does it.

As pointed out in postings above, this is a vice of outcomes-focussed regulation. The analogy is that I drive 20 miles from A to B but am not told until I get to B whether there was a speed limit and, if so, whether I exceeded it.

I have repeatedly asked the SRA to direct my attention to the chapter and verse which supports their assertion that responding to their information request is mandatory. I have been waiting since 7th August for an answer to my last email in the chain.

My quibble has nothing to do with Equality and Diversity. It has to do with the regulator telling me something is mandatory when it is not. If I had a client who asked if he was obliged as a matter of law to comply with this demand for information I would have to tell him that he is not.

I fully expect to be "randomly selected" - probably at 4am.

Are you for real, or another in the (excellent) recent tradition of agent provocateurs on this board ?

I suppose I should know the answer to this being a lawyer and all, but what if the lucky recipients of the SRA's dawn raids either refuse to allow them access to the premises, or order them out if they have already got over the threshold, or refuse to answer any questions put? Should the Law Society not be advising us how we can legally ensure we can get on with running our businesses and complying with the already massive burden of rules and regulations, without being further disrupted and distracted by "diversity swoops"?

I had to answer "prefer not to say" to most questions because there was no "I refuse to answer this irrelevant and objectionable question" option. I am gay but it has no relevance to my job at all. Indeed, if I answer it the SRA will out me at work because the numbers in each category are to be reported back to the firm and they can draw their own conclusions. It is an outrageous interference in my personal life. My firm is therefore more "diverse" than the SRA know, but it is none of their business.

The SRA's new outcomes focused approach appears to be assuming that firms which do not satistfy their required diversity profile are by definition discriminatory. Ludicrous. The first objective of any firm is to succeed in business and those that succeed best try to recruit the best people, whoever they are. If the best people are "diverse" then so be it and likewise if not. But now diversity first, merit second is the unspoken message. We are required to look for difference and act upon it, excluding someone we would have employed because they are not different. Surely that is just imposing real discrimination in the guise of addressing possible discrimination.

It has been said that if you want a revolution first kill all the lawyers, because they are the independent thinkers who collectively preserve the values of a civilised society. That this dross comes from the body regulating lawyers and appears calculated to attack that very integrity from within is beyond a joke.

It may be mandatory for each firm to circulate the survey to all UK based staff, but no one is required to answer. I understand that the SRA have already started following up where no one has answered. I hope that most people will ignore the survey altogether or answer every question with the "prefer not to answer" option. Maybe then the SRA and LSB will get the message that the profession is not interested in their surveys - and will concentrate on selecting the best staff for their particular business regardless of sex, race, religion and sexual preferences.

It is a comforting fact that even now there are solicitors like Keith still willing to speak plainly and for the real professiion

May I suggest you treat the survey with the respect it deserves. Why not tell the SA I mean SRA how diverse your firm really is. How boring and middle class to dwell on ethnic diversity and sexual orientation. Tell them about the all cyborgs and extra terrestrial hive mind reptilian hermaphrodites that this noble profession employs. Our firm has at least 3 members of staff devoted to the peaceful but slightly noisy religion of Gruntism. I am a practicing Gruntist myself. I think Charles Plant is too but he maybe shy.

This is a non issue whipped into a lather by the SRA. There is no debate. The Law is a meritocracy and that is a demonstrable fact. My home counties partnership was until fairly recently composed entirely of white male anglo-saxon protestants. We billed hard and played harder. A team. A gang. Six months ago with some trepidation we tendered for property work and general commercial legal support for a national retailer. One of our leading associates was the surprise star of the tender- a young gal we shall refer to as ‘Kitty’ to save any blushes.

Her prowess with Powerpoint was a given but it was in the after tender celebratory drinks that she came into her own. Purely by chance we bumped into the MD and some of his boys of the new client we had just bagged in one of the west end bars that we were trawling. Lets just say Kitty led the charge when it came to buying the drinks and the hilarity that inevitably ensued did so much more to cement relations with our new clients. Not many partnerships I know can say they all have the same tattoo! I am proud to say Kitty is now my partner. Lawyers have to have a diverse skill set to be successful and to be partners! You see what I am saying is we are all clever clever people within the Law and with a little graft and imagination we can all aspire to the very top notwithstanding any social engineering by the SRA. Bin the survey and do 5 units instead. Then you can join me and the guys ( and girls) around the partnership table. C’mon!

But why impose heavy handed social engineering on a profession already heaving with the weight of regulation as it is?

"The regime" as you call it is going to become a laughing stock because of process driven overkill if the SRA implements the idea highlighted above.

It is all a question of priorities and the Law Society, at a time of double dip recession, still doesn't get it in terms of what these priorities should be

You are all committing thought crime. YOU NEED TO REMOVE THE VOCABULARY OF SUBVERSION FROM YOUR LEXICON. If not expect to be dissolved.

Help I think I just lost my thematic pilot
I thought I was just a solicitor not a star trek jockey

I was astonished by the exchange of comments on this blog

I had feared that matters were in a parlous state in terms of the profession's governing body, but until Sue Nelsons comments appeared I had not fully appreciated how bad things were.

The profession in one sense can be grateful to her, because they now have the evidence to support the notion that the Law Society, and the SRA, are now part of the problem, in terms of the standing of the profession.

Not only are these bodies out of touch, they have, by their misguided policies, seriously damaged the morale of solicitors and diminished the respect that the public once had for the profession

This blog is written more in sorrow than in anger as Shakespeare would say, but I was struck the other month by a comment made by a journalist in one of the Sunday newspapers, when he said that once upon a time the solicitor in the community was considered to be a person of integrity and standing but no more, highlighting as an example of this decline the corruption of the traditional professional ethic by the payment of referral fees.

I suspect that there is a silent but angry group of solicitors simmering with resentment regarding the status quo and this resentment will manifest itself fashion in a dramatic sooner or later

Either way "not me guv".
So the SRA and/or the LS would not lower themselves to comment
through this medium how very high and noble of them.
As they do not seem capable of making sensible decision between
them in their real employment it is hardly suprising that they are
afraid to put their heads over the parapets and face their critics.

as someone from outside the profession, who is helping to run my wife's startup firm, I'm astonished at the actions of the SRA / Law society. The SRA seem to regulate on all the minutiae but miss the elephant in the room and I still can't work out quite what the LS do? Aren't they supposed to be the voice of the profession standing up agains the regulator when required? Thats what happens in my profession anyway. However they just see to be another voice of the SRA. I'm also gratified to note that the new fee structure this year includes a 10% rise in the SRA budget and a 50% rise in the compensation fund, which means our firms fees have risen by over 100% in the last 2 years. Of course that is money that I now can't use to employ someone with, diverse or not. I'm glad to see there's no recession in the world of beaurocratic regulators.
Anyway count me in on the revolution brothers. I'm all for rising up and puting the SRA back in their place. I've been telling anyone in the profession that will listen to do this for the last 2 years! Trust me, coming into your profession from the outside - THIS IS NOT NORMAL - nobody else puts up with stuff like this!

Alex for President!