Many actions needed to give effect to equality outcomes have not been implemented by the SRA

Lord Ouseley’s investigation into why minority ethnic lawyers feature disproportionately in the work of the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has generated much publicity. Peter Herbert, chair of the Society of Black Lawyers, set the tone with a furious denunciation of the regulator. ‘This is as serious for the legal profession as the inquiry into the police investigation of the racist murder of Stephen Lawrence was for the Metropolitan Police Service,’ he said.

Ouseley’s report is, it must be noted, more nuanced than some mainstream coverage (most notably in The Guardian) suggested. That newspaper failed to point out that Ouseley found no evidence of inappropriate penalties or that a disproportionate number of BME solicitors will ‘inevitably’ feature in regulatory activity because of their concentration in small firms. The latter fact begs further questions, not least why there is not greater parity of inspection with large firms.

Still, these caveats should not detract from Ouseley’s principal conclusion: that, through its flawed organisational culture, the SRA ‘lays itself open to the potential charge of institutional racism’. Many actions needed to effect equality outcomes have not been implemented, and some staff have paid lip service to equality and diversity issues, the report says.

We are encouraged to hear that the SRA has already moved to adopt Ouseley’s recommendations. It needs to do so – and quickly.