Dedicated protection

Janet Paraskeva bites back at recent criticisms from the Observer, and describes how the work of the Law Society's Fraud Intelligence Unit in curbing misconduct proves that self-regulation does work effectively


The Observer recently had a go at solicitors and the Law Society over complaints handling. It described solicitors as ‘a law unto themselves’, without bothering itself too much with all the facts, and it described the Law Society’s track record on complaints as ‘less than heroic’.



Running a complaints-handling organisation is always going to be difficult. It is important because it deals with solicitors who have not delivered good service to their clients – and it is easy to criticise.

Paraskeva: rigorous regulator But it is only one part of regulation. What the article did not cover is how the Law Society handles the more serious conduct issues and how we root out that small but worrying number of unethical or dishonest solicitors – the business of our 200-strong investigation and enforcement department, part of our newly created compliance directorate. Sadly, our investigators tell us that the complexity of their cases and the sums of money involved in misconduct are both rising. In some cases, criminals are systematically exploiting the naivety of some solicitors. But we believe that there is also a small hard core of solicitors who think and behave like criminals. Their legal expertise is the equivalent of the burglar’s crowbar. No profession can hope to keep out all those whose misconduct will disgrace it, but clearly this trend is a matter of considerable concern. However, the Law Society is devoting considerable resources to tackling these problems. These resources need to be targeted accurately – on the conduct giving rise to greatest regulatory risk – and our investigations and prosecutions must be conducted robustly. The Law Society’s antenna is its fraud intelligence unit. Many of its staff members have a police background and the unit receives about 4,500 items of intelligence a year. About 70% of that intelligence comes from solicitors and their employees – evidence of the commitment of most solicitors to maintaining proper standards and reinforcing the fact that the profession is well-equipped to lead the regulation process in the future. The fraud intelligence unit liaises closely but discreetly with police forces, the Serious Fraud Office, Customs and Excise and other regulators. This is essential – not least because the Law Society’s powers are not the same as those of other agencies. It would be wrong if we failed to pass on intelligence that, for example, a solicitor was laundering money, to those with the means to investigate the origin of the funds. Intelligence is the key to targeted investigation. The intelligence ranges from oral tip-offs from solicitors’ staff to items of powerful documentary evidence. Except in the latter cases, single items of intelligence on their own rarely warrant detailed investigation. The key is carefully to build a picture of the solicitor or firm. Once there are significant grounds for suspicion, the firm will be investigated, often without prior notice. Some solicitors complain that the Law Society investigates their firms simply to flaunt its authority, but the reality is that virtually all investigations are targeted and intelligence-led. The majority of cases result in some form of disciplinary action. But we should not – and do not – apologise simply because some investigations do not result in disciplinary action. It is important for us to investigate wherever there is credible evidence of a serious regulatory risk – not only where there is certainty of misconduct. In recent years, the Law Society has become much more adept at investigating broader and deeper wrongdoing – particularly facilitative dishonesty, where solicitors help criminals to commit crimes or launder the proceeds. There have been instances of threats from organised criminals to our investigators but we are determined to play our part in the fight against fraud and will not be intimidated. We have expanded our investigation teams – in part because of the deepening complexity of fraud, which increasingly is electronic and deviously concealed. Unravelling a major deception can take even a top investigator many months. If our investigation indicates dishonesty, we will shut down the firm or, in the case of bigger firms, stop the relevant solicitors practising. Then we will refer the solicitor to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. At this point, our role switches from that of investigator to prosecutor. The Law Society is a determined prosecutor that is utterly dedicated to protecting the interests of clients and the wider public. The Society's record on dealing with misconduct shows that self-regulation of the solicitors’ profession can, and does, work in the public interest. This should not be a surprise. Surely nobody other than the profession could have a more compelling interest in assuring the public that it is trustworthy. The Law Society is a rigorous regulator and solicitors are rightly proud of their contribution and of their ability to take a full part in regulating the profession. What a shame no one ever reports that. Janet Paraskeva is the Law Society chief executive