A Law Society review of solicitor regulation is both timely and welcome.

The chair of the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) complains of not being told that the Law Society review of regulation would be announced in the Gazette (see [2008] Gazette, 16 October, 9). In the same edition of the Gazette, the SRA names a solicitor who has gone through the hoop of obtaining Investors in People accreditation, been found to have a more-than-adequate system to supervise his firm, but failed to supervise staff on one occasion and was slow in replying to the SRA.

Lord Ouseley’s report on the disproportionate disciplinary outcomes affecting ethnic minority solicitors may not have faulted the outcomes of sample files reviewed, but there is severe criticism of the SRA’s processes. Even Martin Mears (see [2008] Gazette, 11 September, 8) concedes this. However, the SRA suggests the fault lies with the firms by virtue of their structure as sole practitioners or small firms.

The government has rightly been criticised for failing to ensure that the financial regulators were carrying out their duties effectively. The collapse of some of our large and long-established institutions calls into question the view that smaller firms need more regulation than larger firms. I await with interest publication of the SRA’s plans for regulation of City firms.

It is nearly two years since the SRA was established. A review by our representative body to ensure our regulator is effective but also appropriate is timely and welcome. There is no reason for confusion.

Cordella Bart-Stewart, Vice-chair, Black Solicitors Network