Earlier this year the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) published its Workplace Culture Thematic Review, wanting to help firms create healthy and supportive workplace environments. As the review highlighted, as many as 66% of solicitors experience high levels of mental stress.
This is hardly surprising given the demands of the profession. The review recognised that many solicitors work long hours, have high caseloads and face unrealistic targets and expectations. The review also sets out examples of good practice and provides guidance to firms on adopting good mental health and wellbeing strategies. It offers welcome insight; however, it is disappointing the SRA has not reflected on or applied the recommendations from its review to its own processes when investigating solicitors and firms for misconduct.
A damaging process
Over the years the SRA has commissioned a number of reviews and reports into the disproportionate regulatory outcomes for solicitors from ethnic minority backgrounds who have gone through an SRA investigation. Reports from Lord Ouseley (2008), Pearne Kandola (2010) and Professor Gus John (2014) also highlight problems with the SRA’s investigation processes which significantly impact upon the mental health of solicitors investigated by them. For example, the Ouseley report highlighted the double standards applied by the SRA. The SRA demands information and responses within short timescales but rarely responds within a reasonable timescale themself, and in some cases never responds unless prompted to do so.
Lengthy delays cause distress and in some cases the loss of careers, businesses and professional reputations. Professor John recommended the SRA carry out equality impact assessments on its regulatory proceedings – a cost impact likely to be greater on smaller firms, sole practitioners and those with limited means to pay for legal representation.
Persistent problems
Sadly, in my experience the above problems still exist. I have acted for a number of different professionals regulated by professional regulatory bodies and in my experience the SRA has the poorest case management process. For example, one of my clients has so far been waiting 19 months from submitting their substantive response for the SRA to make a decision about their case. We have heard from the SRA on only four occasions and this has only been in response to our requests for updates. In another case, four months had passed between submitting the solicitor’s substantive response to when we chased for a progress report and were informed they had forgotten to progress the case.
These cases demonstrate a complete lack of supervision or audit over the SRA’s cases. The SRA does not appear in practice to work to any measurable service delivery targets or timescales. When complaining about the delays or seeking updates, we receive an apology and are advised about the SRA’s complaints process, which only places more pressure upon an already vulnerable solicitor reluctant to make a formal complaint lest it progress their case to the next tier of the regulatory process.
More harm than good
One of my clients, the focus of an ongoing SRA investigation, describes feeling the lowest they've ever felt. They describe feeling disappointed with the lack of mental health checks or support from the SRA to rectify the problems identified at the firm they then worked for, and they are unable to secure another job as a solicitor because of the investigation. They describe never having suffered from mental health issues before the SRA investigation; as a solicitor they were used to dealing with workload stress, but there's nothing they can do to change this situation because the regulatory process is beyond their control. At first they thought the SRA would see things as they were and resolve things quickly but they soon came to realise that 'once you're on this roller coaster, you're not getting off it until they decide when they're going to stop it'.
The SRA relies upon the 'public interest' argument in pursuing investigations but surely it is in the public interest for the SRA to conduct its investigations in a manner which mitigates the risk of lasting harm to the solicitor under investigation?
The SRA and Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) websites do have links to organisations which can provide pastoral support, such as Law Care, The Solicitors’ Charity and the Solicitors’ Assistance Scheme. However, the SRA together with the Law Society needs to do much more in terms of providing targeted support for all solicitors going through disciplinary investigations.
Take the General Medical Council (GMC) for example. In correspondence sent out to doctors undergoing investigation, they ask them how they are, they regularly remind them about where they can seek emotional support or help and they signpost doctors to dedicated services which offer support through to a hearing. This is particularly helpful for those who can’t afford to pay for legal representation and have no support from people who understand the process.
Witnesses may also require mental health support. For example, in one of my cases, one of the SRA’s main witnesses has a background of mental health issues and feels the pressure of the SRA’s case resting on their shoulders. Here, the SRA should again follow the example of the GMC and offer independent support and guidance for their witnesses and ensure they too are offered welfare checks.
The SRA needs to carry out a full review of the impact of its processes on the mental health of those involved in its regulatory proceedings and provide mental health training to its staff to spot and handle mental health issues.
Deepika Raino is head of practice professional discipline at Adkirk Law
1 Reader's comment