Report comment

My reading of this piece was not that it was trying to defend the indefensible but that it was looking at the appropriate use of resources. This was an enquiry that went on for around 3 years and at what cost and use of resources. As the author says ‘In addition, the LSB has very important statutory regulatory objectives to fulfil like ‘improving access to justice’ and ‘promoting and maintaining adherence to the professional principles’’
The SRA is a young organisation. To date no review has been carried out as to how effective they are at achieving their objectives as identified by statute and yet week in week out these pages contain complaints about the manner that the SRA goes about its business and its decision making process. Should the resources not have been used to examine this and whether the public, those that are regulated and the interest of justice are being served by this organisation?
One would hope that the LSB does not turn into the SRA coming out with sound bites for the sake of it and is actually working towards achieving that which it was created for by legislation. After all we have seen very little evidence of them over seeing the SRA and its decision making process.


Basically are they monitoring whether the SRA are doing their job properly and ensuring that the public and the interest of justice are protected? Further what reports have they produced concerning this and areas of concern have they identified. That surely is a more pertinent question in the current landscape