From 1 January 2008, the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has had the ability to publish information on its website about misconduct decisions. Members of the public will soon be able to search online for solicitors' disciplinary records.


When the SRA proposed greater publicity for disciplinary decisions in January 2007, the solicitors' profession must have been napping. The SRA asked solicitors and the public if they supported the proposal. Only 25 responses were received.



Under the old regime, interventions and the decisions of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) were routinely published. The SDT deals with the most serious misconduct cases. It receives an average of 225 cases a year, the majority of which result in an adverse decision.



The new policy will extend the scope of reporting to include minor disciplinary matters dealt with internally by the SRA. These include the imposition of conditions on practising certificates, referrals to the SDT and reprimands. The SRA made just under 4,000 decisions of this nature in the year to November 2007. It appears that most of these may be publicised. This suggests that the new policy could increase the reporting of disciplinary matters and misconduct by as much as 1,700%.



Publicising serious misconduct decisions maintains public confidence in the profession. Publicising minor disciplinary offences is another matter. Will the public be helped by knowing that a solicitor failed promptly to renew his or her practising certificate?



The SRA says the new policy will make its decision-making more transparent. But the SRA already publishes statistics about its decisions and informs people about the outcome of their complaints.



The SRA also says publication will allow prospective clients to make informed choices about solicitors. This is an excellent objective - but the new policy does not satisfy it.



Informed choices require information. The SRA intends, however, only to publish a short description of the decision and its background. This will rarely do justice to the complexity of individual cases, and it will not let the average client assess the difference between a minor infraction and a more serious one.



Nor will the information be relevant to a client's choices. Disciplinary offences are personalised to the individual solicitor, but a client wants to know about the firm. Is it good at dealing with complaints? What is the firm's misconduct record? How does that compare with the average across the profession? It appears that none of this information will be available.



When it comes to deterrence, publicity can be a powerful tool. Larger firms may be more alarmed about adverse publicity than a fine. The converse tends to apply to smaller firms. However, although details of an individual's misconduct will be publicised, the firm's name may only be mentioned in passing. This is likely to reduce the deterrent effect on the firm. Also, routine publication of misconduct offences will not allow the public to distinguish between matters that are embarrassing for the firm and those that are not.



Many solicitors will be so alarmed at the prospect of personalised adverse publicity that they will be more aggressive in their responses to an SRA investigation. Proceedings will become more emotive. Appeals will be more likely. Costs will rise.



The policy applies to investigations started after 1 January 2008, so it will be some time before solicitors experience its effects. There may be an outcry once its significance becomes clear. By then, it will be too late.



Graham Reid is an employed barrister in the lawyers' liability group at City law firm Reynolds Porter Chamberlain