The session is all part of the SRA's
national campaign "A Question of Trust"which runs until 31 January 2016.
The SRA invited the audience as well as a distinguished panel of speakers– including Shadow Justice Secretary Lord Falconer – to
vote on what action should be taken when things go wrong with lawyers - typical situations the SRA has to make judgements on day-to-day.
The choice of action ranged from doing nothing, through to issuing a fine, or in the most serious cases striking a solicitor off.
Results of the vote were immediately collated and displayed, and showed a vast range of opinion in almost every case, with panel members and the audience often taking opposite views on the level of sanction that should be applied.
Some of the cases united those taking part. For example, a solicitor manipulating a ‘frail, elderly’ client into changing her will prompted most people to opt for the solicitor being struck off.
Lord Falconer said situations like this do come up and that the decision was reasonably clear cut, as such a flagrant breach of trust would suggest the solicitor was “failing in his most basic duty to his client. If he was not struck off there would be something wrong with the regulatory system.”
Other scenarios were more divisive though. A question on how to deal with a solicitor reading confidential client documents on a train which a member of the public could see clearly, split opinion.
Lord Falconer said: “I think confidentiality with your lawyer really matters to people hugely, and although there was no dishonesty involved and it was carelessness that did it, if you thought that your solicitor was not adequately protecting your confidentiality that would be a very substantial failure as a solicitor. I think it deserves a large fine, and if it was the second time, maybe strike off.”
Stephen Hockman QC , representative of the Labour Society of Lawyers and its former Chair, took a different view however. He said: “I didn’t take such a serious view. I rather thought that you ought to be able to work on your laptop on the basis that even if the person sitting next to you could, if he so chose, read it, why aren’t you entitled to assume that he won’t?
“Does this mean that no one can work on their laptop on a train on anything confidential? So, I wouldn’t personally be prepared to go that far.”
After discussing a number of other cases the panel later reflected on what they had drawn from the experience.
SRA board member, Jane Furniss CBE suggested that the range of views was representative of a split between the regulator and the wider public.
“Very often with these kinds of exercises, the profession concerned is tougher on fellow professionals than members of the public, who are often much more forgiving,” she said.
Chair of the event, PoliticsHome Editor Kevin Schofield added that the experience had “given a flavour of how the decisions were not straightforward, and required finely balanced judgements that would affect people’s careers and lives.”
Explaining the purpose of the "A Question of Trust" campaign which had its public launch yesterday (Thursday 1 October), the SRA’s Executive Director for Policy, Crispin Passmore said:
“We make huge numbers of decisions every year, which reflect quite important issues for lawyers and businesses, but more importantly into the culture that we have amongst legal service providers.
“We try to make those decisions in a way that is consistent, transparent and fair but it is quite important for us to sometimes take a step back and say what does the public actually expect from lawyers? We are the regulator so we are very close to the industry, so to take the temperature of the wider public and to expose the variety of views, will enable us to come back with a very clear framework.
“We can then use that framework to improve our decision making, improve consistency and be very clear then about what standards we are setting for the public.”
________________________________________________________________________
"A Question of Trust" questionnaire is now available to do online
here.