Report comment

Please fill in the form to report an unsuitable comment. Please state which comment is of concern and why. It will be sent to our moderator for review.

Comment

Anon 11.42, it is not just over regulation. It is actually the fact that the SRA is over aggressive and unaccountable. Their attitude is also that they and their solicitors will go for a "win" at any cost since they have a bottomless pit and th decision makers don't really care what costs are being incurred in order to pursue mindless litigation. This leads to grave injustice but the SRA do not care.
Of course regulation is essential but it needs to be proportionate. There is a massive difference between pursuing a dishonest lawyer on the one hand and pursuing, for example, Donna Cannon ( see her comments below )or Anup Shah (fined £2k and ordered to pay £16k costs for telling a consultant that he had lost his marbles when the consultant was engaged in a course of conduct probably amounting to harassment and perhaps could have and should have been referred to the SDT).
The SRA also have absolutely no regard for pre- action protocol and they do not really engage or enter into a dialogue before referring a solicitor to the SDT. Again see the example of Anup Shah where he was accused of dishonesty and these allegations were not even put to him before being referred to the SDT. The article suggests that these allegations were later dropped by the SRA but Mr Shah was still ordered to pay costs of £16k out of a total of £32k. Undoubtedly he incurred costs himself but in normal litigation the party dropping the case or allegations would be made to pay the costs of the other party. This hasn't happened in this case and, frankly, it is a travesty and injunctice against Mr Shah.
Donna Cannon is going through a similar experience and the SRA appear to be acting totally disproportionate.y and out of control.
The SRA need to be taken to task.
The SDT are also not, it would appear, ensuring that only those solicitors who need to be punished are referred to them. They should not be rubber stamping each and every case but should be reviewing each matter referred to them carefully before certifying that there is a case to be answered.
And until the SRA are made to be accountable for costs such as in the case of Anup Shah, they will have no incentive whatsoever to act proportionately.
I am anonymous because I am going through a similar experience with the SRA but will tell my story once my personal nightmare with the unregulated and unaccountable regulator is over.

Your details

Cancel