History repeated itself at the SRA’s compliance conference. As tragedy or farce. You be the judge.
Having faced the wrath of the profession at last year’s event following publication of the LSB-commissioned probe into Axiom Ince, the oversight regulator showed immaculate timing by publishing its equally scathing SSB Law report just days before this year’s shindig.
Last year, SRA chair Anna Bradley famously (or infamously) took a ‘nothing to see here’ approach, describing the Axiom Ince fiasco as ‘history’ – thereby opening a new defence for any solicitor charged with anything that happened in the past. This time – and the SRA’s spinners surely had a word – humble pie was on the menu. Bradley offered multiple apologies during a fraught Q&A with TV journalist Daisy McAndrew, while insisting that ‘continuity’ at board level is imperative. Oral questions from the floor were not permitted; McAndrew was charged with vetting suggestions from the audience. A lone cry of ‘rubbish!’ as Bradley spoke was the limit of delegate dissent.
At a breakout session, head of professional ethics Jonathan White earned his money by fielding questions on the regulator’s record. White was asked what might be the consequences for a solicitor found to have been as negligent and careless as the SRA. Cue an enthusiastic round of applause – and White rather limply requesting that his employer be judged in a year’s time. Another defence for solicitors hauled before the SDT?
No comments yet