I read with interest the article by Peter Williamson entitled 'Open and accountable' (see [2007] Gazette, 13 December, 11).


The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) understandably considers it important to inform the public of disciplinary and regulatory decisions. No doubt the SRA also considers it just as important to be open and accountable in its dealings with the profession. The SRA will, in exercising its duties, be aware of the potential harm to the reputation of individual firms and to the profession as a whole resulting from any decision to publicise a disciplinary or regulatory finding.



The SRA states that it operates in accordance with the government's five principles

of good regulation - proportionality, accountability, consistency, transparency and targeting. Under 'proportionality', regulators should not use a 'sledgehammer to crack a nut', should consider 'an educational, rather than a punitive approach where possible', and should 'think small first' by recognising that 'regulation can have a disproportionate impact on small businesses'.



Under accountability, regulators 'should establish clear standards and criteria against which they can be judged', and there should be 'well publicised, accessible, fair and effective complaint and appeal procedures'. 



As far as consistency is concerned, 'regulation should be predictable in order to give stability and certainty to those being regulated'. Regulation should ensure transparency in the sense that 'those being regulated should be made aware of their obligations, should be given the time and support to comply', and 'the consequences of non-compliance should be made clear'.



Finally, under targeting, 'enforcers should focus primarily on those whose activities give rise to the most serious risks'.



One particular issue in relation to making SRA decisions public is worth significant further debate. As Mr Williamson explains, 'our decisions to prosecute at the tribunal will also be published once a prima facie case is established'.  



If the tribunal finds against the SRA, or if an adverse decision is overturned on appeal to the High Court, then no doubt the publication will be rectified. However, by then, the harm of an adverse publication to the individual firm and to the profession as a whole may already have been done.



Within this debate are two crucial issues. First, the SRA must be willing to have full regard to the five principles of good regulation in making its decisions on whether to refer firms to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. And second, bearing in mind its intention to make such referrals a matter of public record, it should ensure that there is a full and independent appeal process in place, whereby solicitors can fairly challenge the decision to refer.  Currently, there is no such independent process.



Vanessa Shenton (non-practising solicitor), The Compliance Partner, Abingdon