I recently represented an Iranian-born solicitor – let us call him Mr Zadini – in disciplinary proceedings at the SDT. Some of the allegations against Mr Zadini were very serious, but he was not responsible for any of the serious regulatory breaches because he did not carry out any of the relevant work within the firm.

One of Mr Zadini’s partners accepted responsibility for the serious matters and the SRA withdrew the allegations against him. He was dealt with only for two breaches of the accounts rules and one minor matter dealing with inadequate cascading of money-laundering information within the firm. His culpability fell towards the bottom of the scale. He was fined £2,000.

In the meantime his business had been wrecked, not least because of the SRA’s policy of publicising forthcoming disciplinary appearances by solicitors.

If you were to put Mr Zadini’s name into Google you would find on the first page ‘Solicitors Regulation Authority Solicitor ID 123456 – record check’. With one click you would find yourself at the SRA webpage ‘Published regulatory and disciplinary outcomes’. With two more clicks you would find the six charges faced by Mr Zadini. If you were thinking of instructing Mr Zadini to carry out some legal work for you, I suspect you would think again.

I spend much of my professional life trying to help and advise solicitors in trouble with their regulator. Some deserve harsh disciplinary treatment, but many do not.

Time after time my clients complain to me about the unfairness of having the disciplinary charges published by the SRA on its website, there for all to see. And time after time they report a downturn in new instructions as a result of that catastrophic publicity.

Is this fair? To my mind the answer is no. The SRA has a very wide range of regulatory powers. It can impose conditions upon practising certificates, and in this way it can efficiently protect the public interest pending the resolution of disciplinary charges by the SDT. It has no need to publish those charges to the world at large. Often it does not impose any conditions upon solicitors who are facing charges. Whether it does or not, a careful judgement is made as to what the public interest requires. Such conditions are inevitably imposed for the protection of the public, and are, properly, published on the SRA website.

Back in June 2007, when the publication policy was being thrashed out, Peter Williamson, chairman of the SRA, wrote in the Gazette: ‘The consequences of publishing disciplinary information could have serious effects and there will need to be appropriate thresholds and safeguards, including the right of appeal to the SDT.’

That admirable statement of principle has since been entirely abandoned. There are no thresholds and there is no right of appeal. Instead, all referrals to the SDT are published on the SRA website unless the solicitor concerned is fortunate enough to be represented by one of the very few firms of solicitors who oppose this indiscriminate policy. And there is no right of appeal to the SDT against a decision to refer a case to the SDT (any challenge must be by way of judicial review – there has been no reported successful challenge).

There is another reason why the policy produces manifest unfairness. It discriminates against those with unusual surnames. My instructing solicitor in the Zadini case was the redoubtable Nigel West of Radcliffes le Brasseur. If you web-searched Mr West, you would have to wade through pages of materials about the eponymous spy writer before finding anything about Nigel West the solicitor. I cannot help believing that the SRA publication policy must discriminate against ethnic minority lawyers.

It is time that the SRA reconsidered and abandoned its policy of indiscriminate publication and formulated a more rational and proportionate one.

Gregory Treverton-Jones QC is a barrister at 39 Essex Street chambers, London, and co-author of The Solicitor’s Handbook