Report comment

The main point here is that it is not reasonable for legal service consumers to suffer a loss on account of a firm and its partners deciding to act dishonestly by reneging on their agreed legal contract to protect client funds through the fulfillment of due diligence obligations. It's besides the point whether as a consequence of their dishonesty they have provided a legal service or used their client account as a banking facility, the obvious fact is that they have defrauded their clients and that the whole purpose behind the establishment of the SRA, and indeed the SRA's primary function, is to protect consumers against solicitors who use their professional knowledge of the law to deceive clients in order to profit from their client's loss - i.e. fraud.

Despite the immensity of this fraud, the SRA considers it is not necessary or appropriate to establish fraud against its members - that is just perverse. Along with the SRA circumventing its own dishonesty tests, it demonstrates deceitful intent by the SRA to cheat victims of misconduct out of redress on account of the sheer scale of the fraud, any which way possible. That is a clear case of regulatory corruption.