By David Young-
Consumer Panel chair, Sarah Chambers(pictured) has called for more to be done to ensure that disciplinary decisions on solicitors and firms are visible to potential clients – and keep decisions on serious misconduct in the public domain for longer.
Chambers, an expert in regulation, competition and consumer policy, with leadership experience at Board level was commenting in response to the SRA’s consultation on what information should be available to the public and when, Legal Services Consumer Panel chair Sarah Chambers said there should be a presumption to publish all enforcement data where an investigation has led to a sanction.
The idea is to protect the public by ensuring all is done to help prospective consumers make well informed choices when choosing a solicitor.
Chambers called for a new obligation on the SRA to provide the public with information by potentially extending the three-year limit on how long adverse decisions against solicitors remain in the public domain, as well as making information potentially accessible to digital comparison sites.
‘Consumers have the right to know about the shortcomings of the firms with whom they deal with, so they can protect themselves and be vigilant against unfair behaviour,’ said Chambers. ‘It would be useful for consumers to have a way to access additional detail if needed. If they are concerned that a solicitor they would like to engage or interact with has a regulatory citation, they may want to satisfy themselves that it is minor or not related to what they are asking them to do prior to going ahead with that engagement which would mean that additional detail was needed. Some consumers may even like access to the full decision where it is available.’
Several solicitors in the Uk are reprimanded and struck off the role every year, many of them fined or have costs imposed on them for breaching the SRA’s codes of conduct.
Offending solicitors are a minority , but plenty in number enough to warrant a safety framework for innocent clients.
Chambers said the panel was concerned that where a solicitor had been suspended or their authorisation restricted for more than three years, once they were reinstated there would be no public record of what had occurred. She recommended that publication should continue for three years after the suspension or restriction has concluded.
Furthermore, where a solicitor has been struck off, removing a record of that after three years would allow them to offer legal services in the unregulated market with no ‘red flags’ in the public domain of what has happened in the past.
‘There are some regulatory decisions that should be publicly available for longer than the standard three years to allow prospective consumers to make informed decisions,’ added Chambers. ‘It seems likely that consumers would want to know about more serious breaches of compliant behaviour for longer periods of time. This would suggest it makes sense to link the severity of the regulatory decision with the length of publication.’