SRA Letter

From the Chief Executive
Ms Charlotte Parkinson
The Cube
Chair, Junior Lawyers Division
199 Wharfside Street
The Law Society Birmingham B1 1RN
113 Chancery Lane
London, WC2A 1PL DX: 720293 BIRMINGHAM 47
UK 0370 606 2555
Int + 44 (0)121 329 6800
Sent by email only to: juniorlawyers@lawsociety.org.uk F + 44 (0)121 616 1999
19 May 2020 www.sra.org.uk
Dear Ms Parkinson
Re: Recent decision of the SDT regarding Claire Louise Matthews
Thank you for your letter of 6 May relating to the above decision.
You raise very important issues about the environment in which junior lawyers work, and the
need for the SRA to take a fair and proportionate approach in our enforcement procedures,
particularly when faced with evidence of vulnerability or health concerns. We agree and are
committed to doing so.
You set out a number of concerns about our decision to prosecute Ms Matthews before the
Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) and our handling of that prosecution. You will
appreciate that there are ongoing appeal proceedings in that case. However, I can briefly
confirm that I am satisfied that our handling of this case was appropriate.
First, you mention the issue of junior lawyers working in toxic environments and/or hiding
regulatory issues or being unable to speak out, out of fear. That is something that we take
very seriously – although it was not an issue in this case, we understand how difficult it can
be for people in such a situation.
Of course, this raises fundamental issues for the profession which need a coordinated
response. Those such as yourselves whose role is to support solicitors and promote good
practice, play an important role. Our enforcement procedures only come into play where
things have already gone wrong at the firm or for an individual, and measures must be taken
to protect the public. That said, we always seek to approach these matters sensitively and
set out below some of the ways in which we do so.
Further, we are clear about the importance of reporting concerns so that we can act to
address bad working practices as well as any conduct issues. We understand what a difficult
situation this is for anyone to find themselves in, let alone someone in a junior position.
We have introduced rules which make it clear that we will not tolerate anyone we regulate
attempting to prevent an individual from making a report, or to subject them to detrimental
treatment for having done so.
The regulator of solicitors and law firms in England and Wales

Our guidance sets out the help and support we can provide to those who speak up, including
the role of confidential or anonymous reports. And if an individual is involved themselves in
the conduct in question, that contextual mitigation, such as the person’s junior position, lack
of control over events, and any fear of reprisals, will be taken into consideration by us when
deciding on the appropriate outcome.
Cases such as this one highlight that it is often where there is a failure to be open and
honest when things go wrong (here, the loss of data) that we need to step in and take action.
You also mention concerns about the prosecution of solicitors with mental health issues. We
want to do everything we can to support solicitors with health issues and to help to make
sure that they do not find themselves in our processes. As part of that we have published a
range of resources on our website as part of the Your health, your career section, which
includes signposting to organisations that can offer support for people in difficulties.
We recognise the impact regulatory proceedings can have on the health of the individual
concerned, and this is obviously an issue of great concern to us.
We need to balance carefully the public interest against the interests of the individual. We
are able to adapt our procedures, and apply reasonable adjustments, where appropriate –
and to consider alternative means of disposal where an individual is not well enough to
participate, or participate fully, in Tribunal proceedings. These considerations involve us
taking case by case decisions, guided by the evidence, to ensure any action we take is both
fair and proportionate, and protects the public interest.
We are also clear in our guidance that the health of the individual at the time of events may
have a significant bearing on the nature and seriousness of any alleged breach.
We have developed new guidance (attached) which sets out in more detail current practice
and processes where health issues are raised in our proceedings. This is currently in draft
form, and we aim to publish it shortly with a view to providing greater comfort and
transparency for those who may be subject to regulatory procedures at a time when they are
particularly vulnerable or unwell. However, we felt it would be useful to share with you at this
stage to help explain our approach. In particular, it explains that expert medical evidence is
not always required, and where it is necessary, the circumstances in which we would obtain
this ourselves – which include where the solicitor in question is too unwell or is otherwise
unable to obtain it themselves.
As you will be aware though, neither a person’s junior position, nor health, will be an answer
where the person has been found guilty of culpable dishonesty. This is the position that was
confirmed in the case of Sovani James, and the seriousness of dishonest behaviour for a
solicitor’s professional status has been highlighted in caselaw since Bolton –v– The Law
Society [1993] EWCA Civ 32.
In this case, it is easy to lose sight of the fact that this is not about a solicitor leaving a
briefcase on a train, but that the evidence of her colleagues was that she lied to them on a
number of occasions about the matter. The Tribunal described this conduct in paragraph 35
of the judgment
“The Respondent’s actions after the loss of the briefcase were not spontaneous, on the contrary,
following an initial moment of panic which many people in this position would have experienced, the
Respondent pursued a considered path of conduct in which she did not report the loss as promptly as
she ought to have done and in accordance with her employer’s policy on reporting data loss. The
Respondent consciously misled her colleagues as to the true state of affairs whilst making enquiries
with the rail company’s lost property department in the hope of recovering the briefcase and
contents without ever informing her employer that they had been lost and to that extent there was
thought and planning on the Respondent’s part.”
I do hope that this helps to explain our approach and reassures you that we do take a careful
and considered approach to all decisions to prosecute, particularly where there are health
issues involved.
Yours sincerely
Paul Philip
Chief Executive
Solicitors Regulation Authority
Encl. Draft Guidance

SRA Letter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SRA Letter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SRA Letter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

From the Chief Executive

Re: Recent decision of the SDT regarding Claire Louise Matthews

The regulator of solicitors and law firms in England and Wales

Encl. Draft Guidance

You might also like