Report comment

My SRA story
A bank manager accepts he lied to my (personal) bank manager to cover up his own negligence and dishonesty resulting in £8,000 unlawfully debited from my account, including our young son's disability payments, without notice and with devastating effect. He refused to answer my calls, the bank is about to close and so in blind panic I send a private email to him demanding he put the funds back and referring to him a "dishonest, incompetent, idiot", he admits to the police that actions were dishonest arising from his negligence. Unsurprisingly he makes no complaint about the email.

I was a prosecution witness in criminal proceedings against another solicitor, she gave a copy of the email to the SRA. I did not hesitate to fully accepted I had sent the email and further accepted that whilst my comments was factually correct I could have used more tempered language but did not as that was not my pressing priority at the time, this was not in the course of business, it was a private email, no harm arose or was claimed.

The SRA took an opposing view stating this presented a real "risk" to the public, the public would be "shocked" any lawyer would call a bank manager dishonest and therefore it warranted a fine and costs of circa £5,000, a written rebuke and publication so that the public knew the kind of solicitor they would be instructing. When valuing the level of fine they didn't need to apply the statutory obligation to consider my obvious financial difficulty as the bank's delay in remedying their action caused the sale of our home so I could pay it from that. They topped it off by informing me I had no no external right of appeal and warned me that if I exercised my internal right of appeal they could increase the sanction.

I had to discover for myself that statement was not true. I had a right to an external appeal, and have now exercised that right, by appealing to the SDT. The SRA were directed to provide a trial bundle for the CMH and it was only then that they disclosed that the only evidence to go before the adjudicator was theirs, not a shred of mine, claiming their discretion to do this was unfettered.

My understanding is the SDT do not publish interlocutory judgements, so neither will I but what I can state is that the SRA claim their costs to date exceed £40,000 after only 2 CMH's! This may well cost me and my family everything but my family, my friends and my clients are behind me all of the way.

The way they behave, particularly towards ethnic minorities, female practitioners, smaller firms and those who challenge them cannot continue because it's wrong so it will never prevail.

Sometimes I need reminding why it was I entered this profession, the SRA's conduct reminds me, to stand up for those not able to stand up for themselves. One of my dearest friends self harmed when they took not only her firm but her practising certificate when she fell foul of a bank scam, she was a female sole practitioner of 30 years in, the others caught were larger firms, they merely received insignificant fines even the ones that hid it from the SRA and covered the losses with funds in client account. They then petitioned for her bankruptcy for more than £250,000 to meet the costs of the intervention and so now her and her children are homeless as well.

The consequences of targeting those that are the most vulnerable are a matter of record:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/deaths_of_solicitors_while_inves

Why does this happen, because we allow it to. I always read the comments about how the profession view the SRA, that level of feeling towards a regulator is unprecedented. I note that many of you call for "action", "disbanding", "accountability". Maybe what we should be calling for is a united approach to bring about our common goal natural justice, openness, fairness and proportionality. After all isn't that our role, as lawyers?

I can't do this on my own, my case will barely cause a ripple, at it's highest I could emerge blemish free with a costs order that doesn't follow the event that will bankrupt me so I won't be able to practice anyway, but if that is the worst thing that happens to me in my life then I am blessed and it is better than the alternative.

But, none of us are alone in this, 'united we stand divided we fall', I am no expert in judicial review but there are over 120,000 of us not including our non-lawyer colleagues they also regulate which must double that number, that is some 'group claim' even if it was only supported by 1%, there must be one of us that feels the same that practices in the area judicial review.

The SDT have given some brave judgements recently but they can only gate-keep the matters that come before them, most actions are taken at SRA level and go unreported and unchallenged. Making comments in the Gazette might make us feel a bit better but it won't hurt the SRA because they are not 12 years old! You only have to look at the fact that nearly all the comments on the SRA articles are posted anonymously to evidence how frightened we all are that we will be next. Clients, and the profession, deserve the protection of a regulator but from one that is just and accountable and who fosters the client's right to chose the solicitor they instruct, which in my experience is never based on gender, ethnicity or where they went to school, not one that statistics support are targeting to extinction the more vulnerable in preference to the "untouchables" such as Manches, KWM and Clyde and Co? That's not a fearless regulator, that shooting fish in a barrel.

At times when I have struggled with what they have done to me and my family, and 2 years on I still struggle, I quote my long suffering but utterly brilliant husband, come on profession "What noise do tiger's make?"