Report comment

And the profession generally is now having to pay the costs of this nasty little exercise in bullying through the fees its members pay to keep the SRA in business. It beggars belief that the tribunal thinks it has achieved something by halving the costs ordered to be paid in recognition of the solicitor's circumstances. The man is bankrupt, so no costs will be paid, whatever the order says; neither will payment of the fine imposed be forthcoming. If you have no money, you have no money. And, ludicrously, all this achieves zero in terms of solving the problem that there are 4,000 files and umpteen deeds and wills that need to be dealt with properly in the clients' best interests - which is why the solicitor thought it best to throw himself on the 'mercy' of the SRA in the first place.

There seems to be a pattern emerging here - approach the SRA in good faith, with a genuine and serious concern about something that has gone wrong (be it a trainee solicitor worried about illegal activity within her firm or a sole practitioner who is facing bankruptcy, needing help with doing something about his files) and you will receive neither help nor human compassion. Instead you will be punished, humiliated and made out to be a bad person who is an utter disgrace to the profession. It's just as well birching and burning at the stake are no longer lawful punishments, otherwise the SRA/SDT would no doubt be happy to seize on these as suitable punishment options.

I for one am deeply ashamed that these cases are emerging from the woodwork. It is tragic that the very system that is supposed to safeguard against the profession being brought into disrepute is itself achieving that very outcome by its blinkered, needlessly cruel and high-handed approach to discipline. I have no problem with the genuine 'bad apples' being dealt with swiftly and vigorously in the interests of protecting the public, but the SRA seems incapable of distinguishing those cases from others, like this case, that merit a more nuanced, considered and problem-solving approach.

I have often wondered whether anyone at the SRA ever reads the steady stream of LSG comments that apply to them and notices how consistently disparaging they are of many aspects of their regulatory approach. If they do, then they must have rhino hides not to feel the need to do something constructive about the abysmal reputation they have among the profession they regulate. But nothing does happen, so either they don't bother to read the comments or, worse, they do and merely shrug them off with an arrogant complacency, secure in the smug belief that, whatever we say, they know best what is good for us and we should simply 'suck it up'.