By Gabriel Princewill-
A lawyer who is avidly pursuing the LSB to reveal intimate details of communication between the Legal Service Board and the SRA in relation to the Leigh Day case has continued a query in relation to their response to his Freedom of Information Request for more disclosure about their communication in connection with the case. The man, whose identity we cannot reveal, but is known to both the LSB and the SRA, is questioning the propriety of the communication between both regulatory bodies whilst the hot case was still pending.
The Eye Of Media.Com had sent a Freedom Of Information Request to the Legal Service Board last December, requesting disclosure of the LSB’s dealings with the SRA, but was turned down. A similar request independently sent from the Law Society was also declined at the time. After a few murmurings and discussions held over the matter, a lawyer subsequently pursued the case, relentlessly seeking answers.
The LSB said the information was being withheld because disclosure could ‘inhibit the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation’ and may prejudice the conduct of public affairs”.
They added: ”These meetings provide an informal forum and safe space for the free and frank exchange of views and opinion at the most senior levels within the respective organisations.
‘They provide a valuable opportunity for the LSB to gain insight into operations and functions of the SRA, of which it has statutory oversight, and provides both parties with an informal forum in which to raise issues in candour. These meetings are essential to inform the LSB’s consideration and discharge of its statutory role as the oversight regulator of the SRA.’
The SRA spent £4m on the Leigh Day case overall, including £995,000 covering the firm’s costs
DECLINE
After an initial decline of or Freedom Of Information Request from the LSB, the anonymous lawyer with a legal experience of 25 years sent a 20 page document challenging the grounds of the refusal, and pressing for answers through the LSB’s internal review. A reply was eventually sent to the lawyer yesterday, March 20, and published on this site.
UNSATISFIED
Unsatisfied with the level of disclosure in the response, the discontented lawyer is pushing for more elaboration on the matter. A further letter sent to Ms Danielle Vial has been presented to The Eye Of Media.Com for publication. It reads:
”I am pleased that the LSB has recognised that its section 36 arguments were untenable. It is regrettable that it took three months – and 20 pages of written representations from me – for the LSB to recognise that fact.
”I confirm receipt of your email and letter dated 20 March 2019. I am pleased that the LSB has recognised that its section 36 arguments were untenable. It is regrettable that it took three months – and 20 pages of written representations from me – for the LSB to recognise that fact.
1. Mr Buckley’s “notes” were not notes, but emails. You have not explained why they were described to me as “notes” when they are very clearly internal emails.
2. You previously indicated that you were consulting third parties (and that that was a “necessary step”), but your letter makes no reference to any such consultation. Despite my email dated 14 March 2019, you have not said whom you have consulted, why they were consulted or why they were not consulted before your internal review. Has the LSB been consulting the SRA and the SDT about this matter? If so, why?
3. You do not wish to consult Leigh Day about the document which the LSB received from the SRA on 30 October 2017. This is (I assume) because you do not want to show that document to Leigh Day.
4. On 30 October 2017, the LSB was conducting an investigation (into some unspecified subject) of which there is no record on its website.
5. The minutes of the SDT user group meeting are so inadequate as to be meaningless.
”I do not accept your construction or application of section 167 and am considering referring this aspect of the matter to the ICO under section 50 of the FOIA 2000. I would not be considering that step if you had told me that you had consulted Leigh Day and they had objected to disclosure of the document which the LSB received on 30 October 2017.
AVOIDANCE
From what I can see, the LSB’s aim is to avoid showing Leigh Day a document which (on the LSB’s own case) relates to Leigh Day. Contrary to paragraph 8 of your letter, there are no “strong policy reasons why bodies like the LSB cannot be expected to respond to FOIA requests by seeking consent in this way”. Consulting Leigh Day is a simple step, which the LSB is trying to avoid taking. It appears that the LSB is worried about showing the document to Leigh Day and worried that Leigh Day would consent to its disclosure.
Your letter fails to appreciate that (a) it would at the very least be courteous and professional for the LSB (as a transparent and accountable oversight regulator) to consult Leigh Day and (b) it is open to Leigh Day (or individuals within Leigh Day) to take steps to require the LSB to disclose the document to them, it being part of the LSB’s case that the document contains information which relates to them.
The Leigh Day case was brought up in a meeting of the SDT user group committee held in March 2018, and attended by a representative each from the LSB and SRA. Law firm Leigh Day and three of its solicitors have been cleared of all the allegations of professional misconduct they faced over Iraq war murder compensation claims.
The not guilty verdicts delivered by the solicitor’s disciplinary tribunal (SDT) in London are a severe setback for the Solicitors Regulation Authority, which launched the costly prosecution, and the defence secretary, Michael Fallon, who had called for legal action.
CRITICISM
Both the LSB and The SRA have been criticised by this publication for affording offending legal practitioners special treatment by refusing to disclose their full identity when caught in acts of misconduct for which they are fined or struck off. Both regulators, which are competent in many professional respects, have provided untenable excuses , the SRA shamefully citing the Data protection in a flawed manner that reveals their lack of understanding of the law.
The lawyer told The Eye Of Media.Com: ”They are hiding something. The LSB are supposed to promote transparency and accountability, but they are doing the opposite. It doesn’t cost them anything to contact Leigh Day for permission to disclose the outstanding information, and satisfy the request. Both the LSB and Leigh Day Solicitors have been contacted for comment. The latter asked us to give them a day to respond.