SRA to establish first regulatory panel

  • Print
  • Comments (2)

Readers' comments (2)

  • These interventions cost a fortune.
    Why are they still doing this?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • They say intervention is necessary to protect the public. This is a pack of lies.
    When the 1974 Act came into being, the Law Society did not have the power to inspect client files other the the accounting records. Between 1957 and 1965 there were only 15 interventions. Currently there are 100 interventions.
    Go to Sheikh v Law Society 2005
    Not a single penny was missing. This was after 9 visit for inspections.
    They could not find anything serious, so they spend 7 months cooking up this interview notes and sculpting thier forensic report FI.
    When in court they advance that the report has been prepared by the said inspector.
    In fact does the up and down rounds all the way up to the director.
    When it is finalised, a case worker writes a synopsis.
    They contend that the panel has made the decision. No body know who the panel is or if they ever read any material.
    Sheikh spent almost £700,000 and is still in litigation with them 4 3/4 years on, and losing her practice.
    The so called case worker are of mediocore quality and have to perhaps look to their senions member for guidance. They are more like quality standards workers, and do not have much experience in runnig a practice.
    They target small firms. I believe the number has breached 4000.
    The misery they cause to untold people connected to the intervened solicitors client and family is just immeasurable.
    Inevitably the targeted solicitor will find himself bankrupt. He will find his family is breaking down. Divorces ensue. Whilst all this is happening his former firms liabilities remain undischarged. He and his family may even end supported by the state.
    All this is robbing other peoples hard earned money.
    The panel earns their fees form the SRA partly paid by the compensation fund which is in fact meant to compensate cleints who may have suffered a loss.
    The panel solicitors earn millions out of this misery. Only the thick can profit from this futile show of unfettered power.
    Time has come when this practice of intervening shold be revisited. There are other alternatives. When they close down a practice they take away the files. That was the purpose of the 1974 act. To find something more since they could not requisition the client files.
    In this day and age after having conducted an investigation, there can be no need to close a firm down on mere suspicion. Suspicion arises before an investigation. After the investigation there should be a prime facie case.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Mandatory

Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (2)