Report this comment to a moderator

Finers partner slams SRA's new rules on defending solicitors

The SRA's stance is understandable but that does not make it desirable. As well as the confidential information issue they identify, it also raises a significant question in relation to independence, as a number of those who prosecute may now derive close on 100% of their income from one source. Nobody questions employed solicitors' entitlement to do the same, but the SRA does question firms' independence when they receive >20% of their work from one introducer. Independence will also be a significant issue for ABSs, where, for example, a claims management company teams up with a law firm to become an ABS, or a financial institution (e.g. mortgage lender) owns an ABS which provides services to its customers as well as itself . The interpretation of 'independence' was considerably broadened by the guidance to rule 1.03 of the Solicitors' Code of Conduct 2007, amended on 31 March 2009. I don't accept the view that it only reflected what was always the case; it was amended to deal with the perceived threat of firms 'jumping the gun' before ABSs were permitted and is not repeated in the new Code. If the principle always meant what was set out in that amendment, it gives rise to interesting questions in relation to ABSs. What is meant by 'independence' in the SRA Principles is perhaps now ripe for wider and more open debate.

2-Apr-2012

10:41 am