The SRA has announced that those wishing to restore their name to the roll of solicitors can now do so but subject to new suitability criteria. This article looks at those criteria.
Outcomes focused regulation was formally introduced on 6th October and firms must now operate according to the new principles. But what does it involve and what will be the implications for practitioners?
The move to outcomes focused regulation has been accompanied by the publication of a new definitive source of those rules and regulations by which solicitors, recognised bodies, alternative business structures and everyone else involved in a solicitors’ practice must abide. This is the Solicitors Handbook.
Looks at Chapter 1 of the SRA Code of Conduct and compares it with provisions in the 2007 Solicitors Code of Conduct
The SRA has long had the power to require, operating in the place of the Law Society, to require a solicitor to produce documents in connection with an investigation. Additions to the Solicitors Act have extended those powers.
In order for any solicitor to be able to practice, or to be held out as a solicitor, in England & Wales then they must be admitted as a solicitor, be on the roll of solicitors and, except in very limited circumstances, hold a current practising certificate
An intervention is one of the most drastic steps which the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) can take and has the effect of freezing the firm’s bank accounts, and of dealing with client files in such a way that they are either retuned to the clients or forwarded to another firm to be dealt with.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal was established to adjudicate upon breaches of the rules of professional conduct by solicitors, registered foreign lawyers and those who are employees of solicitors and to hear applications for restoration to the roll.
Misconduct is a fundamental concept in the regulation of all professionals and will usually result in a some form of regulatory sanction, the exact nature of which will be determined by the severity of the misconduct, being imposed upon that professional.
As the date for professional indemnity insurance renewal approaches, it is becoming clear that in many cases it will again be the indemnity insurers who have the final say as to which firms live and which die. Anxiety is running high in some quarters as to whether insurers will make an offer and whether that offer will be economically viable.
Where insurance is not obtained on the open market and where a merger or takeover is not possible, options remain extremely limited.