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

It is not just the SRA that can bring cases before the SDT. Perhaps some of this influx of additional cases is due to solicitor clients not receiving proper justice via the SRA ? This is completely plausible. Once trust is lost in the SRA to bring cases correctly, victims of solicitor misconduct will bring their own cases - at least that way they can be certain that all evidence is presented, that the correct allegations are made, and that justice isn't compromised in order to permit the SRA to escape compensation claims !

In the Ecohouse case the SRA didn't even allege dishonesty when a solicitor firm released £33,000,000 in client funds to a scheme that bore all the hallmarks of a fraud. The SRA made no attempt to establish fraud against its members either - anything to avoid bankrupting the compensation scheme !

The SRA still refuse to bring a retrial against the solicitors who misappropriated 850+ client's funds over the course of 2.5 years in a sustained and deliberate act of dishonesty and in the knowledge that no development work was taking place. Some clients even had their funds rifled in just 2 weeks - I don't know of any development company that can build houses that quickly, and especially when they don't own development land !

The bottom line here is that the SRA are not bringing adequate justice in misconduct cases, they do not have proper regulatory controls to prevent misconduct, and are failing in their duty to protect solicitor clients. It is no mystery at all why the number of SDT cases is sky-rocketing. The SRA is an unfit regulator and its board / policy makers are intent on destroying protection in an attempt to resolve an insurance indemnity crisis. Everything that the SRA does supports the assertion that the regulator is bent and is not acting in the public interest at all.

Your details

Cancel