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

Having considered a number of recent escrow/banking facility cases it is immediately apparent how differently the SRA treat three (presumably white) City law firm partners compared with others from smaller firms (often from BME stock). (a) Why an agreed outcome when other firms in the same situation have had to deal with contested proceedings? (b) Why is the fine ridiculously small when other fines have been equivalent to 50% of profits? (c) Why has there been no judgment published by the SDT? (d) Why are the culprits not subject to any practising restrictions? (e) Why have the SRA not sent a press release to tabloid journalists as it has done in prior cases or even posted about it on their Twitter feed?

Although, I have not yet read the SDT findings, there appears to be a clear difference in treatment by the SRA to this international City based firm compared to a majority of the smaller firms involved in escrow/banking facility cases before the SDT.

Smaller firms have either been intervened, had solicitors suspended or received substantial fines. Some have been subject to demeaning press releases sent to tabloid journalists by the SRA itself.

Clearly, there should not be one rule for the City and another rule for smaller firms for the same breaches of the rules.

I would welcome the SRA to respond and clarify.

Your details

Cancel