Report this comment to a moderator

Finers partner slams SRA's new rules on defending solicitors

Thanks Frank - erudite as always; though I am not convinced about "understandable". What struck me was the very long self-justification... It seems very odd that a perceived conflict of interest has just arisen when the panel system has existed since at least the 1970s without anyone spotting it before. It has always been thought that defending makes you a better prosecutor and vice versa, and of course this could not be imposed on the Bar. It also seems odd that the SRA cannot, seemingly, trust its own lawyers to identify a conflict should one arise on a case by case basis, which is the way the rest of the legal world manages to operate. However, the alternative scenario, which the excessively cynical might suggest, that the SRA does not really like defending advocates to know too much about what goes on in the organisation, is of course untenable, as I am sure that we all agree, because as we all know the SRA is a completely transparent operation. The reality, as Ms Johnson knows, is that the pool of "defence only" firms and advocates who are really experienced in this field is very small; I am acutely aware of that when I need to recommend or refer, and removing all those who choose to prosecute, as well as defend, from the experts available to assist solicitors in their dealings with an all-powerful regulator is a very negative development by any measure. Independence is engaged in both the respects identified by Ian and Frank - in the sense of the 'prosecution only' mindset, and in over-dependence on a single client. This is not healthy. It is also unnecessary - how curious that the SRA which sets the rules, including those relating to conflicts of interest, should feel that those rules are inadequate in relation to its own relationship with the profession as a consumer of legal services, though they are wholly adequate in all other respects...

2-Apr-2012

2:25 pm