I refer to BD Woodhams’ letter ‘Unworkable scenario’ (see [2008] Gazette, 13 November, 13). This concerned the reprimand given to a salaried partner by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, even though she was not aware of the infringements caused by the sole equity partner of the firm in question.

From conversations I have had with other solicitors it would seem that this is not an isolated incident. Nobody, however, has been able to tell me why the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) appears to be taking such a tough stance against salaried partners for alleged offences which at best can only be described as technical. To expect a salaried partner to know of everything that is going on inside a firm is unrealistic, to say the least. Indeed, it is often the case that salaried partners are excluded from some partner meetings.

However, this does not seem to matter to the SRA. It would appear that, if a salaried partner is technically guilty of an offence, such as failing to ensure compliance of an undertaking given by a partner in another office which they knew nothing about, a finding to that effect will be made against them.

I would be interested to know what the SRA’s response to this is. I also think that the Law Society needs both to produce proper guidance for would-be salaried partners about some of the potential liabilities they are letting themselves in for, and also to insist that it is written into their partnership contracts that they must be allowed to attend all partners’ meetings.

Michael Newbold Richards and Morgan, Bournemouth