There is no disguising the fact that the past year has been a challenging one for the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA). There have been a number of issues on our agenda, including embedding best equality and diversity practice in everything we do; preparing for new types of firms spawned by the Legal Services Act; ensuring that all new solicitors are of adequate standard; dealing with investigations; and securing the necessary resources to do all this efficiently.

If the SRA had a honeymoon period after it was formed, that is now over. While some of the publicity we have received has been hostile, I am reassured that there has also been much constructive comment. The frequent appreciative messages about our practice advice visits, and about our telephone guidance, are testimony to the determination of our staff to help good solicitors comply. That is a key part of the regulator’s role.

For me, one of the big messages of the past year has been the need for proportionality in all our work. Of course, for us this is not a new concept. When the SRA was formed, we vowed to operate in accordance with the government’s principles of good regulation. One of these is proportionality: regulators should act only when it is necessary, and remedies should be appropriate to the risk posed.

While we, and our Law Society predecessors, have espoused proportionality to be a key principle, applying this is easier said than done. There has been scope for greater consistency, though. We need to think in a risk-based way throughout an investigation and not only at the start. The question is whether there is a real risk to the public. I am pleased to say, though, that work has been under way for some time to ensure that the SRA deals proportionately with different types of regulatory risk, and also appropriately with the various types of firm at which it might occur.

We have formalised the assessment of risk and, to improve consistency, graded the seriousness attached to the various risks with which we deal. These processes have been published on the SRA website.

Easily the most important consideration in assessing the degree of risk is potential harm to the public. Concerns about the honesty of a solicitor are taken far more seriously than mere technical breaches of the rules.

The SRA has also been taken to task for not taking enough account of the differing types of firms it regulates and the kinds of work they do. Some large firms have accused us of being heavy-handed on occasions, while some small firms have accused us of letting the big firms off.

Criticisms have been made by the City of London Law Society (CLLS), whose constituency includes many of the biggest firms – some of which have more than a thousand fee-earners. These firms are used to dealing with big corporate clients, which have sometimes been described as ‘sophisticated’, and are handling deals with a global dimension.

During the past year, the SRA has listened carefully to the CLLS. The SRA has shared views and experience with the CLLS and also with some of the largest firms. In view of the imminence of firm-based regulation, these talks are timely. We have discussed the best ways in which we can assure quality and deal with breaches promptly and proportionately. We have also met other professional regulators to learn about how they deal with big firms.

This dialogue has reinforced our view that there needs to be a more transparent, two-way relationship between the SRA and the firms it regulates - whatever their size or type. We should be as open as possible, unless there is an overriding public interest to the contrary. In other words, there should be a presumption of openness.

We also recognise the need for those SRA people who deal with bigger firms to have exemplary knowledge and skills in relation to conflict, the nature of corporate dealings and international practice.

The criticism that we are not adequately aware of solicitors’ circumstances has also been made in respect of black and minority ethnic (BME) firms.

Dialogue and the awareness it creates are prerequisites to progress. So, one of our initiatives - when deciding where to hold regulation roadshows - is to give priority to areas where there are significant BME communities. A few weeks ago we held two well-supported events at Kenton for solicitors working in north-west London. This week, we were due to run a workshop with the Black Solicitors Network, and are working with other BME practitioner groups on similar events. During 2009 our roadshows will visit, among other places, Leicester, south London and the Leeds/Bradford, Slough/Reading and Blackburn/Preston areas.

Roadshows are not just about the SRA expounding its policies - they are opportunities for solicitors to tell us whether they think we are being reasonable and proportionate. They are valuable learning opportunities for us and influence our work.

The need for proportionality is especially great during an economic downturn as sharp as this. At times like this, many firms are focused on how to stay in business.

The SRA must be alert to this, while protecting the public interest. A major test for the SRA in the coming year will be to deal sensitively but effectively with the various regulatory issues presented by our troubled economy.

Peter Williamson is chairman of the board of the Solicitors Regulation Authority