SRA plans for ABS fining guidance branded “premature”


Law Society: critical response

Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) plans to issue guidance on the financial penalties it will impose on alternative business structures (ABSs) and those working in them are premature, the Law Society has claimed.

In January the SRA launched a consultation on a three-step approach to fining. This would involve first assigning a ‘score’ to the conduct in question according to its seriousness, in order to determine which penalty bracket it falls into.

Secondly, discounts to the penalty would be applied to take account of mitigating factors; and thirdly a check would ensure the penalty has removed any profit or gain arising as a result of the conduct.

In a highly critical response that attacked the reasoning behind many of the proposals, the Law Society said that given the SRA’s “lack of experience” in regulating ABSs, “we believe such guidance is premature… [This] means the SRA has little to base its guidance on”.

It added that the guidance focused on imposing fines on entities rather than individuals. “However, the SRA’s approach to entity regulation is unclear. In many cases only individuals are pursued, in a smaller number of cases both the individuals and the firm are pursued.

“This guidance is predicated on the SRA moving towards entity-based regulation but on the available evidence the SRA is not operating a clear and consistent policy in this respect.

It also expressed surprise at the lack of consultation with the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, given its role as the appeal body.

Meanwhile, the SRA is to examine the effects on clients when it closes down a firm as part of an intervention.

The research, led by University College London trio Dr Nigel Balmer, Professor Pascoe Pleasence and Professor Richard Moorhead will look at what happens next for clients of intervened firms, what the SRA can learn from clients’ experience of intervention, and whether there are any differences in the experiences of different ‘groups’ of clients from an equality and diversity perspective.

Finally, the SRA is seeking views from the compliance officer community on a new element to the methodology it uses to risk assess firms.

The SRA’s risk centre is looking to introduce a new element of severity to sit alongside the current impact and probability components of risk assessment. This would help the SRA identify those risks that are greater than others.

At present, level 1 risks in the SRA’s risk index are not weighted or prioritised. By proposing to allocate a severity score to each risk, the SRA acknowledges some risks inherently have more potential than others to harm the regulatory objectives.

Tags:




Leave a Comment

By clicking Submit you consent to Legal Futures storing your personal data and confirm you have read our Privacy Policy and section 5 of our Terms & Conditions which deals with user-generated content. All comments will be moderated before posting.

Required fields are marked *
Email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Blog


Five key issues to consider when adopting an AI-based legal tech

As generative AI starts to play a bigger role in our working lives, there are some key issues that your law firm needs to consider when adopting an AI-based legal tech.


Bulk litigation – not always working in consumers interests

For consumers to get the benefit, bulk litigation needs to be done well, and we are increasingly concerned that there are significant problems in some areas of this market.


ABSs, cost and audits – fixing regulation after Axiom Ince

A feature of law firm collapses and frauds has sometimes been the over-concentration of power in outdated and overburdened systems of control.


Loading animation