We were told that the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has begun publishing misconduct decisions for the benefit of the general public, those decisions having previously been treated as private (see [2008] Gazette, 20 March, 3). Consumer organisation Which? applauded the decision, but why and what use is this information to the general public?


At first glance, it seems that it might help people choose some solicitors and avoid others - but is this what it seems to be? A small, slightly 'dodgy' commercial client, seeing that a local solicitor has been fined for filing his accounts late with the Law Society, might conclude that this is just the man he wants.



While it is useful to know that certain solicitors may be precluded from undertaking certain types of work, surely the information is largely meaningless to the general public and is likely to hold little more than curiosity value - in much the same way that reports on disciplinary proceedings published in the Gazette are regarded by the profession.



Surely the only really useful information is knowing whether your solicitor has any negligence claims against him. With the demise of the Law Society's self-administered insurance fund, it is difficult to see how that information could be readily compiled. It seems, therefore, that a solicitor who is extremely concerned about his client's welfare and works hard would have an adverse finding made known to the public, whereas a solicitor who could not care less about the welfare of his clients and has run up a substantial list of negligence claims gets no adverse publicity whatsoever. Another victory for the auditors, administrators and regulators and not - as the SRA would have it - a victory for the consumer.



Nigel Anderson, Anderson Partnership, Chesterfield