We need continuity of leadership, says SRA chair after damning SSB report

The chair of the Solicitors Regulation Authority today stressed the need for stability as she continues to answer questions in the wake of the SSB Law report. Anna Bradley told the annual compliance conference in Birmingham that she would not resign following the publication of the Legal Services Board review into how the regulator handled SSB.

The LSB found more than 100 reports were made to the SRA over five years warning about potential non-compliance, but these were not acted upon and the regulator allowed thousands of vulnerable clients to be put at risk of costs orders.

Bradley was asked outright if she would leave her post before her term finishes at the end of next year, but she insisted she should stay to assist new chief executive Sarah Rapson, who joins next month.

‘The board are very clearly of the view we need to retain a bit of continuity as this process [the new chief executive] happens,’ said Bradley. ‘Continuity of leadership to ensure lessons are learnt and changes are properly implemented. We are very focused on doing that and continuity is important for it. [The board] will continue to refresh and renew the skills we have available.’

Bradley reiterated her apology to delegates and in particular to the former clients of SSB and said the SRA would adopt the LSB’s recommendations in full.

The oversight regulator said that the SRA must improve its knowledge management system, training and procedures to ensure staff can properly assess individuals and firms.

Outgoing chief executive Paul Philip said it had been an obvious area of weakness that the SRA did not have the required data about SSB to gauge the risk posed by the Sheffield firm.

Philip warned that the regulator is likely to be ‘more intrusive’ into the running of firms, particularly those involved in areas considered higher risk such as consumer claims, conveyancing and immigration.

‘In order to identify more risks and patterns, we need more data – particularly where we identify high-risk areas,’ he said. ‘Perhaps we will be asking better questions and demanding better information from those firms.’

Philip said the SRA would be more ‘pro-active’ and ‘penetrative’ in future by inspecting more firms and requiring information about how they are being run.

One likely immediate change is to tighten the rules around accountants’ reports and when firms are required to submit them to the SRA. Currently, firms have to supply a report only where an accountant has qualified it, but a consultation will be published in the coming weeks over requiring submissions from all firms. 

But the SRA leaders warned that such extra activity is unlikely to be possible within the organisation’s current budget. Philip pointed out that not only will the SRA be more intrusive but it is already dealing with a substantial increase in annual complaints about solicitors – up from around 12,000 a decade ago to more than 15,000 this year.

‘It is causing a bit of strain on the system – there is no doubt about that,’ he added.