Firms failing to create a safe working environment will still have to face a hearing before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, regulators have stated.

A joint statement published by the SDT and Solicitors Regulation Authority effectively suggests that this type of misconduct will usually incur fines of more than £25,000 if it is found proven.

The organisations this week issued a joint statement on referrals to the tribunal in the light of the SRA’s new power to fine firms and solicitors up to £25,000 (alternative business structures can be fined up to £250m by the SRA).

Such increased scope for issuing penalties will inevitably reduce the tribunal’s workload as more cases are dealt with by the regulator, which decides what matters should be referred.

But the statement makes clear that the SDT will continue to hear the most serious cases of individual professional misconduct. Examples of cases that should ‘typically’ be referred to the tribunal include a failure by a firm to take appropriate steps to protect an employee from ‘counter-inclusive misconduct’, which is defined as conduct which intentionally or unintentionally denies opportunities because of their background or characteristics.

The statement says referrals will be made where there is evidence of firms creating a ‘pervasive toxic culture’, as well as those whose failure to comply with regulations causes harm to clients or employees.

The SDT will also hear cases involving allegations of sexual misconduct, racism, bullying or harassment.

Cases involving more than one respondent, those of high public interest and those which involve a novel point of law are all likely to be heard in the tribunal.

The statement added: ‘The SRA’s increased fining powers now mean there is an opportunity to make sure that cases are not referred to the tribunal unnecessarily. It might now be able to deal with cases at a higher level of seriousness than previously. For example, these cases might involve a breach of the SRA’s accounts rules with personal culpability, but with no deliberate intention to misappropriate money or personal gain.’

Cases involving a material dispute between the parties that can only be resolved through an oral hearing should be referred to the tribunal (save for applications relating to licensed bodies). The statement added that ‘not only does the tribunal have the relevant experience and capability to deal with these, but this clearly meets the SRA’s open justice and public interest objectives’.

 

This article is now closed for comment.

Topics