Legal Services Board condemn the SRA

The solicitors' regulator is to face unprecedented enforcement action under the Legal Services Act following the discovery of a catalogue of failures in its handling of the 2023 collapse of law firm Axiom Ince. A long-awaited independent review of the Solicitors Regulation Authority's actions, published today, found that in the run-up to the SRA's closure of Axiom Ince, the regulator:

Axiom Ince, formed by a series of mergers involving Axiom DWFM and struggling practices Plexus Legal and Ince, ceased trading following an SRA intervention in October 2023. About 1,400 people lost their jobs in the closure and investigators found that more than £60 million of client money was missing. The loss will be covered by the profession through a 270% rise in contributions to the Compensation Fund.

The LSB has found the regulator ‘did not act adequately, effectively and efficiently’ in 2023 collapse

At the end of last year, oversight regulator the Legal Services Board commissioned an independent review of the SRA's handling of the affair by Carson McDowell LLP, a Northern Ireland firm not regulated by the SRA. The review report was originally promised for spring 2024. However in May, the LSB revealed that publication would be set back because of the July general election.

Following today's publication of the report, the LSB said it had agreed to initiate the process of set directions under section 32 of the Legal Services Act. The act empowers the LSB, in the event of a regulator's failure to comply withy the act, to take 'such steps as the board considers will counter the adverse impact, mitigate its effect or prevent its occurrence or recurrence'.

It is the first activation of these powers since the LSB's creation under the 2007 act. In its response, the SRA said it did not understand the basis of the enforcement action.

Alan Kershaw, LSB chair, said: ‘The Axiom Ince case has caused significant consumer detriment. Our decision to commission a thorough independent review reflected the importance of understanding the SRA’s actions leading up to its intervention in the firm. It was essential to uncover what went wrong to reduce the risk of it happening again. The review found that the SRA did not act efficiently and effectively or take all the steps it could and should have, to lessen the impact of what had occurred.

'The SRA’s actions and omissions have in our view adversely impacted on confidence and trust in the regulation of legal services,' Kershaw said.

In a statement responding to the announcement, Paul Philip, SRA chief executive, said: ’At the heart of this issue is a suspected complex and well-hidden fraud carried out by a solicitor, with an ongoing criminal investigation by the Serious Fraud Office. The report recognises our "excellent work" in uncovering the suspected fraud. But there are things we could have done better. We moved quickly last year to tighten up some of our processes.

‘There is a lot in the report that we don’t agree with, and we don’t understand the basis for enforcement action. However, we think it is important to focus on working with the LSB and others to tackle future challenges in the legal sector.

‘With the market changing rapidly, we need to respond. We will be consulting soon on changes to better protect clients’ money. This will include exploring the more radical solution of whether we should stop law firms holding client money.’

In a futher response, Philip Barden, partner at Devonshires, who acts for the remaining Axiom directors and the administrators, said: 'It’s important for people to understand that the remaining 12 Axiom directors are completely innocent and knew nothing about any misconduct or fraud that was happening at the firm. They spent six weeks working around the clock to mitigate the impact of the fraud on clients and staff, and through their efforts clients were rehoused and more than 1,100 jobs were saved.

'Action is being taken to recover as much of the £64 million losses as possible and we are hopeful of a significant recovery although the process is complex and may take some time to achieve.'

Meanwhile the Legal Services Consumer Panel expressed ‘profound concerns’ about the findings of the independent report. It urged the SRA and LSB to take decisive action to enhance oversight and accountability, protect client money, review consumer protection measures and mandate more transparency in firm operations.

12 April 2023: Listed international firm Ince Group reveals it is set to enter administration.

28 April 2023: Axiom DWFM buys business and some assets of the Ince Group in administration.

23 August 2023: Axiom Ince reveals it may be ‘unable to continue in its current format’.

12 September 2023: Former Axiom Ince managing partner Pragnesh Modhwadia reveals that £64m withdrawn from client account has disappeared.

3 October 2023: SRA reveals that it has intervened into the practice of Axiom Ince.

18 October 2023: SRA reveals solicitors may be required to make a one-off payment to plug an expected hole in the Compensation Fund.

27 October 2023: Compliance expert Frank Maher calls for an inquiry into the SRA’s actions before the collapse.

14 November 2023: Serious Fraud Office makes seven arrests in connection with the collapsed firm.

20 November 2023: SRA reveals it waited almost three months to send investigators into Axiom Ince following eye-catching acquisitions.

6 December 2023: LSB says it is considering an independent review of the cause of the collapse.

20 December 2023: LSB says its report into events leading up to the collapse will be published in spring following investigation by Northern Ireland firm Carson McDowell.

1 March 2024: SRA says it has allocated an initial £60,000 to investigating the SRA’s actions over the collapse of the national firm Axiom Ince.

30 May 2024: LSB says report will not be published until after general election in accordance with guidance to public bodies.

9 July 2024: Days after the election, the LSB says the report is still not ready for publication, although it had been completed by Carson McDowell.

27 September 2024: LSB approves application from the SRA to increase compensation fund contributions to cover the cost of the Axiom Ince intervention.

Anonymous
29 October 2024 4:40pm
What a shower!
Is there anything here that we did not all know already/

Gary Clive Marshall
29 October 2024 4:26pm
I do think the some has arrived to rid the profession of an evolutionary mistake. I believe the SRA could be put down painlessly (for the profession if not the beast itself) by a petition to Parliament.

Anonymous
29 October 2024 4:25pm
CILEX Regulation tagging CILEX in this article and commenting “still want to be regulated by the SRA rather than us?”

Anonymous
29 October 2024 3:08pm
About time we lobbied for complete separation between the Law Society and the SRA which, under the Legal Services Act 2007, is part of the Law Society group.

Anonymous
29 October 2024 2:01pm
Just do what I do, forget LPC's, practise certificates and becoming a Solicitor with a god-awful regulator, just be a senior fee earner on a Solicitors wage, its safer, cheaper and nobody can ask me to put my hand in my pocket because THEY messed up. Its curious isnt it. For a elite profession a, profession that Joe-Public does, weather they to like to admit or not, hold in a very high regard as a diabolic overlord . What strikes me is the all 'benevolent tut-tut regulator' makes a almighty cock-up and its subjects pay the price out OF costs/wages. Not in any other profession will you ever see this happen !

Anonymous
29 October 2024 1:51pm
I disagree with a couple of the comments below likening this to some Shakespearean epic.

Instead, I rather think you could play it out to the refrain of The Cuckoo Song.

Anonymous
29 October 2024 1:42pm
'But, but, but, we want to poke our noses in where it is not relevant from a professional regulatory point of view and has precious little bearing on the consumer and , so what, if we are slow to spot, or even miss, activity involving multiple millions of pounds which really should be regulated because it very much affects the consumer and consumer confidence in the solicitors' profession.

We do not recognise this and view it as your perception but despite this we shall learn any appropriate lessons, if indeed, we deem we should need to learn anything at all.'

Anonymous
29 October 2024 1:40pm
If a respondent solicitor said "there's a lot in the SDT's decision which I don't agree with", he/she would be published more severely for failing to display "insight". Clearly, different rules apply to the CEO of the SRA.

I'd like to know how much the SRA has spent on seeking legal advice in relation to the report. You can pretty much guarantee that it has been paying one of its pet firms to advise it.

Anonymous
29 October 2024 1:29pm
So, legal execs, does it still seem to be such a good idea to become regulated by this embarrassing shambles of an organisation?

Anonymous
29 October 2024 1:21pm
"A lot in the report that we don’t agree with."

And how much sympathy/mercy would the SRA show to a solicitor who used that line in response to a damning SDT judgment?

Franko Manka
29 October 2024 1:15pm
Message to the Directors and Senior Managers of the SRA:- please resign as a demonstration of your insight into your failures. could the last one to leave please switch off the lights.
Thank you

Anonymous
29 October 2024 12:57pm
Thank you to Stephen Larcombe for the reminder that there is "a tide in the affairs of men".
From the same play I prefer : -

"Cry "Havoc" and let slip the dogs of war,
That this foul deed shall smell above the earth
With carrion men, groaning for burial"

Anonymous
29 October 2024 12:52pm
I wonder what Private Eye is going to make of this!

Anonymous
29 October 2024 12:44pm
The report confirms what we all already knew. The question remains: What are the LSB going to do about it?

No doubt, they'll get a slap on the wrist while we pick up the pieces. Seems to be the theme with judges recently too. Formal warnings for them while solicitors would have been fined & struck off for the same behaviour.

Anonymous
29 October 2024 12:27pm
I wonder what Anne Bradley, SRA Chair, now thinks of her Axiom Ince performance in front of the Justice Select Committee, where she made the point of saying "allegedly" when a solicitor MP asked about the SRA's potential lack of regulation in the scandal!

Anonymous
29 October 2024 12:27pm
There are many things to digest and we should be grateful to Messrs Carson McDowell for their report.
As someone who retired within the last year and will therefore not be "stung" by this fiasco, I am struck by the fact that Modwadhia was sole owner, managing director, Colp, Cofa and money laundering officer for this vast firm. My old small traditional partnership firm thought that we needed separate appointments for the three regulatory appointments and I'm nonplussed that this was permitted here. However my greatest feeling is that this is as much a indictment of Falconer's absurd Legal Services Act as the SRA itself. I think a total reset is needed (and that doesn't include a central client account).

Anonymous
29 October 2024 12:26pm
‘There is a lot in the report that we don’t agree with, and we don’t understand the basis for enforcement action,.

Not understanding you are a problem for consumer confidence in the solicitors' profession is very much more serious.

Anonymous
29 October 2024 12:20pm
Henceforth, consideration should be given to rotate out the Chief Executive at the SRA , if it staggers on after this, every 3 years. This to avoid the very obvious empire building mentality.

I, for one, was appalled at Mr Philip's appearance at the Justice Select Committee. The body language reeked of 'how tiresome' and there was precious little engagement.

And fining that solicitor 40 times more than his Magistrates' fine for a driving offence was ridiculously petty but also a manifest statement of intent.

Laura Bailhache
29 October 2024 12:08pm
An utter disgrace; I’m ashamed of the SRA. What is being done to recover embezzled client money from the partners and insurers of Axiom Ince?

Steve Wedd
29 October 2024 12:01pm
Anon 0955, yes and what about the deafening silence when we all (fellow professionals, the banks that lend this insane amount of money on a puff, their accountants, their staff) warn and warn again?

Tired
29 October 2024 11:55am
This isn't anywhere near as damning as it could have been.

I question the decision to go down the route of s.32 Directions. The SRA is better resourced than the LSB and so can come up with a clear action plan for closing any gaps.

I have decided to assume that the LSB felt it needed to take some sort of enforcement action and Directions was the least bad option.

The SRA should be proactive and go a bit resource heavy on acting quickly - if it does that it will render any LSB Direction a bit pointless.

Michael Moore
29 October 2024 11:53am
p7 para 20 - " The SRA, across the organisation, had information which, if drawn together, should have flagged a potential risk to clients and consumers."

Every practitioner ever sanctioned by the SRA will have done "excellent work" Mr Philip. As you judge so shall you also be judged.

Anonymous
29 October 2024 11:48am
This is what happens when you move en masse with your friends from a previous job and there is very little actual oversight for years and years and years, some may think.

David Webb
29 October 2024 11:44am
Paul Philips and the senior miss-managers at the SRA have failed both the SRA and profession in general. They must all be removed - and without any "golden good-by". Meanwhile the profession will pick up the bill.

Richard Bagley
29 October 2024 11:37am
Clearly the board and senior management do not undertand the words 'regulation or accountability'. They should have the decency to step down and new blood should sort this out.

Anonymous
29 October 2024 11:28am
No doubt the profession will unjustifiably foot the bill for the SRA's failings.

Anonymous
29 October 2024 11:27am
Why are there 4 separate LSG threads, each inviting replies, on this one issue

Elizabeth King
29 October 2024 11:20am
The SRA allowed the loss of £60m of momey which the profession now has to pay but they don't understand and don't think anyone needs to resign. How do we sack the CEO and all the others who stood by and let this happen?

Anonymous
29 October 2024 11:19am
Could Mr Philip please personally explain to every Plexus Law employee who lost their jobs why his utterly incompetent organisation spent three months sitting on its hands before visiting Axiom Ince following its purchase of Ince & Co, despite having identified that the purchase merited a visit. The subsequent purchase of Plexus Law would have been prevented by an earlier visit, allowing the opportunity for another bidder to purchase them and save the jobs ultimately lost.
Mr Philip: anyone in your position with a shred of decency would have resigned immediately on sight of this report.

Anonymous
29 October 2024 11:19am
Resign - all the Board. A disgrace , this nightmare must end.....have some decency would you ?
And the tripe Mr Philip spews is beyond comprehension - the challenge we as a profession face frankly is you Mr Philip and the SRA over which you preside with increasing alarm bells to those of us in it, stuck with your repetitive arrogance, robotic diktat and pursuit of expansive powers... if the SRA investigated, would your bleating 'We don't understand' carry the day ? Think on your sins and failings.

Gary Clive Marshall
29 October 2024 11:19am
So, Philips, time to step down and to stop continuing to blame others for the SRA failure. Where does the buck stop in your organisation, it stops as in all organisations at the top. I suggest you resign with grace.

What I find particularly insulting is that Philips accuses Axiom Ince of covering up their complex fraud whereas the SRA have withheld the report of their own miserable failures since the Springtime. To me a little reminiscent of birds of a feather in some ways.

Who will pay for the SRA finesand financial sanctions? It should not come from solicitor's contributions! Dig deep Philips, empty your pocket.

Anonymous
29 October 2024 11:18am
So the SRA doesn’t understand the basis of the enforcement? What about all those targeted by the SRA for minor infractions who also didn’t understand the basis of enforcement yet endured months of worry and irrecoverable costs? The profession is sick and tired of paying for a third rate regulator which adopts a holier than thou approach to disciplinary matters (such as low level office party misdeeds where a simple warning would suffice) yet is asleep on the job when tens of millions of client money goes missing.

Anonymous
29 October 2024 11:15am
A search against Paul Philip's name will reveal an interview in the Gazette all of 9 years ago. He said of the SRA at the time that it had "alienated itself from the Law Society and the profession". He's had 9 years to do something about that - and failed. The interview reviews his CV. Yet another 'professional regulator', with little or no experience at the coalface. "Those who can, do; those who cannot . . " become professional regulators. My £1 says he'll just trot off and secure yet another regulator's position, until it's time to retire and enjoy the fat pension which we, and other victims of his wisdom, have funded.

Karen Todner
29 October 2024 11:15am
The Law Society should be calling for Paul Phillips immediate resignation and setting up a Solicitors Defence Union.

Anonymous
29 October 2024 11:10am
as the SRA are culpable for this mess they can pay the additional levy

Anonymous
29 October 2024 11:10am
Lord Cardigan and the Charge of the Light Brigade comes to mind when reading Mr Philips comments. This suggests to me that a change in the senior management of the SRA is long overdue. CILEx members also take note when deciding on regulation.

Lorraine Richardson
29 October 2024 11:06am
I think that the release of this unfolding debacle today has as much to do with the timing of the practising certificate renewal as the budget. A cynic might observe that those of us who have had to pay a £90 levy (and the firms £2220) have by now paid it. You will recall that there was a stop on the payment of a levy for a while and then it was allowed to go through. It dawned on someone that the financial black hole had to be filled. By us. If this report had been released 2 or 3 months ago, there would have been uproar from the profession. This way, there may be uproar, but by now we have all had to put our hands in our pockets to pay for this shameful episode, with little or no chance of it being repaid to us.

Anonymous
29 October 2024 10:56am
The SRA are a disgrace. Something needs to be done as they think they can repeatedly get it wrong and be beyond reproach!

Anonymous
29 October 2024 10:55am
"We don’t understand the basis for enforcement action."

What a disgraceful, arrogant response. The LSB reaps what it has sown: years of failing to slap the SRA down has resulted in a regulator which has no respect for the LSB, the SDT or the profession. Let's now have a full investigation into the LSB's uselessness.

Anonymous
29 October 2024 10:39am
Could a new single legal regulator now be on the agenda!

Anonymous
29 October 2024 10:37am
The SRA's response demonstrates a concerning disconnect from practical realities, indicative of an 'ivory tower' mindset. While the nature of potential sanctions remains unclear, Paul Philip would benefit from adopting a more grounded approach.

It's striking how the regulator’s reputation has deteriorated within the sector.

The continued push to prevent firms from holding client funds underscores the SRA's limited understanding of the practical challenges associated with TPMAs.

Anonymous
29 October 2024 10:36am
Hang on, a solution might be to prevent solicitors firms holding client money?
The useless, petty, woke obsessed regulator fails and the solution to that issue is to stop law firms holding client money?
Is this some kind of joke?
Mr Phillip is out of his depth and should do the honourable thing and resign. The SRA is not, nor has it ever been, fit for purpose.
We need to scrap it and start again.

Anonymous
29 October 2024 10:35am
Let's face it, who doesn't wish they had the self-confidence of the SRA Chief Executive? I'm surprised he doesn't ask for the LSB to be abolished and folded into his own organisation....

Anonymous
29 October 2024 10:32am
I sincerely hope that the LSB will take decisive action following this report. The fact that client money will be secured only through a 270% increase in contributions to the Compensation Fund is astonishing. We're all bearing the consequences of the SRA's failure, yet it roles were reversed, a firm in that position would have been shut down long ago. And let's not overlook the human cost for those who worked at Axiom Ince - what an utter shambles.

Anonymous
29 October 2024 10:32am
Joel @09:49; is there just a faint possibility that the timing of the report's publication might be thought to tend more towards the Machiavellian than the cynical?

JEFFREY SHAW, AT NETHER EDGE LAW
29 October 2024 10:30am
"SRA abolished; bonuses that it handed-out to be refunded by those wrongly rewarded; solicitors to be subject to only their own professional body's supervision (and to have their excess contributions, over and above a normal level of PC renewal fees, returned forthwith)."

Anonymous
29 October 2024 10:29am
The SRA spends a good deal of its time trying to hobble or obliterate the careers of people for much lesser transgressions. What's good for the goose...

Stephen Larcombe
29 October 2024 10:27am
“There is a tide in the affairs of men
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.
On such a full sea are we now afloat;
And we must take the current when it serves,
Or lose our ventures.”
― William Shakespeare , Julius Caesar

The regulation of a legal profession denied self-regulation by politicians ignorant regarding the rule of law, must be based on principle, not the pursuit of process for its own sake.

The SRA has, in recent years, misinterpreted the regulatory objectives of the LSA 2007.

Its authority has been severely diminished, and therefore the Law Society must seize the day and re-establish its authority.

Anonymous
29 October 2024 10:27am
https://legalservicesboard.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Independent-Review-of-the-Regulatory-Events-Leading-up-to-the-SRAs-Intervention-into-Axiom-Ince-Lim.pdf

Anonymous
29 October 2024 10:27am
At least this wasn't released on budget day.
Time for the SRA leaders to go and without a penny in compensation. Their pensions should be handed over to the profession as some compensation for the losses they have incurred and which the profession now has to pick up.
Complete and utter incompetence has been exposed, but denied by the SRA. Well the SRA would say that, wouldn't they? And that's a large part of the problem.

Anonymous
29 October 2024 10:16am
"We will be consulting soon on changes to better protect clients’ money. This will include exploring the more radical solution of whether we should stop law firms holding client money.’"

And isn't that typical? Not a hint of an apology. Not only does this man put up a line of defence that would be scoffed at if a recalcitrant lawyer tried it on in response to an SRA finding, the SRA's solution is not to get its own house in order or crack down on the spivs and dishonourables waved into the profession in the name of "innovation", but to open another front in the war against the decent and honest majority of firms.

The fish rots from the head. The SRA leadership must be cleared out, starting with Mr Philip. The Law Society must call for that, now.

Anonymous
29 October 2024 10:16am
‘ In its response, the SRA said it did not understand the basis of the enforcement action.’

Jonathan Cook
29 October 2024 10:15am
I am utterly dismayed by the tin eared arrogance of the SRA's reaction. Being found guilty of under performance of their duties their only solution is ... to punish the profession further by taking away their client money responsibility.

Anonymous
29 October 2024 10:09am
In a statement responding to the announcement, Paul Philip, SRA chief executive, said: "I acknowledge the very serious failings documented in the report. I know that the buck stops with me. I have therefore tendered -" oh, hang on, I misread that.

Anonymous
29 October 2024 10:02am
As a result of this and because he has the responsibility and integrity to do so Mr Philip resigns apologising to everyone who has to pay for this debacle.
Oh no sorry, I have that wrong.
I used two words Mr Philip does not understand so he is now staying!

Legal Lady
29 October 2024 10:00am
I agree with the sentiments expressed below. Why did it take so long for the findings of this report to be made public, and what exactly will the LSB do now? Whatever they do will no doubt not result in a refund to those whose contribution to the compensation fund have increased significantly as a result of this debacle. And what is being done to recover the funds from the assets held by those previously in charge at Axiom? As usual there are more questions than answers.

keith evans
29 October 2024 9:58am
If the SRA ends up receiving a financial penalty, who pays this, and who pays the costs incurred by the SRA in dealing with this report?

Anonymous
29 October 2024 9:55am
Agree with JW re timing of publication.
What about the LSB's involvement in ignoring the warnings about the SRA's failings? This is not dissimilar to errors made by the SRA stretching back all the way to the Wostenholmes debacle.
All very well to say the SRA will face enforcement action but who will pay the cost of that?
Not Paul Phillips for sure, but us solicitors who have no say in how the SRA is run and then have to foot the bill for its mistakes.
Surely a sensible oversight regulator should simply put a stop to plans for expansion-fining powers, CILex etc and force it to concentrate on core delivery?

Joel Woolf
29 October 2024 9:49am
Cynical as I am - has this been released today because tomorrow and possible for some time afterwards the press will be focused on what the Chancellors has said. Thus, this utter debacle will end up buried before it reaches the wider press beyond the legal profession.

Not only should the LSB explain why it has taken so long to publish this report but also why it has chosen to publish 24 hours before the most hotly awaited and anticipated budget in recent memory.

Anonymous
29 October 2024 9:40am
We now need to know why there was such an apparently unnecessary delay in releasing the report.

Also it is laughable that the SRA are apparently using their own failures to justify TPMAs.

Anonymous
29 October 2024 9:34am
Good grief. Everyone buy a lottery ticket because I don’t think any of us actually expected the LSB to criticise the SRA AND let us know it.

The actual steps to be taken remain unseen and the SRA’s response is as pathetic as expected but let’s all bask in what we can get for once

Hubris, nemesis: it’s time for the SRA to stop empire-building and rebuild trust

Today’s long-awaited report on the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s handling of Axiom Ince ahead of the firm’s closure is lacerating. The solicitors’ regulator did not act ‘adequately, effectively and efficiently’, concludes the LSB-commissioned review. Nor did it take all the steps it ‘could or should’ have taken in advance of shutting Axiom Ince down.

‘The SRA’s actions and omissions have in our view adversely impacted on confidence and trust in the regulation of legal services,’ says the board. That is about as damning as ‘quango speak’ gets. And those egregious failures will now be further spotlighted in national media.

In an unprecedented step, the umbrella regulator has initiated enforcement action under the Legal Services Act 2007 against its own lead enforcer. Reputationally, that is devastating. The SRA’s humiliation is complete. Talk about handing ammunition to your critics. ‘Judge not, that ye be not judged!’ many solicitor sceptics will cry from this day forward.

It is, of course, solicitors who are picking up the tab for the debacle. Compensation fund contributions are soaring to help plug a £60m hole in Axiom Ince’s client account.

Here are a few snap observations on the LSB’s announcement, as we digest the full report. First, it is time for the umbrella regulator to call a halt to the SRA’s inveterate empire-building. LSB approval is currently awaited for its land grab of legal executives via the transfer of oversight responsibilities to the SRA from CILEx Regulation. When urgent questions are being asked about the watchdog’s ability to regulate solicitors - never mind anyone else - it is surely untenable to extend its ambit further.

As for the SRA’s barely concealed wish to evolve into the single regulator of all lawyers - well, that has to be the deadest of ducks for now.

Second, the SRA wants to further expand its reach (and sideline the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal) via the arrogation of effectively unlimited fining powers for all types of misconduct. That was a hugely controversial proposal even before today’s report. It is even more controversial now.

To what extent does the Axiom Ince report demonstrate that the SRA is fit to act as judge, jury and executioner in its own cause? Has it ever been fit so to act? The evidence is hardly compelling.

Last week, the SRA issued a piece of its own research showing that only (only?) one in four ‘legal professionals’ views the regulator negatively. One has to admire the chutzpah of its timing. The Law Society responded to that exercise in solicitor-funded self-promotion by urging the regulator to get on with the day job. Prescient advice, it turns out.

We’re not done yet, either. As the SRA languishes on the ropes, there may be another body blow coming. A separate but related independent review is pending on the SRA’s regulatory actions in the lead-up to last year’s equally spectacular collapse of Sheffield firm SSB Group. Questions are being asked about SSB in parliament. Many more are incoming.

Will the House of Commons justice select committee take an interest? It probably should.

We were recently told that SRA chair Anna Bradley is staying on for an extra two years to help the Cube ride out the storm (or navigate what the SRA described, with characteristic understatement, as ‘not a steady state period’). As far as we know, long-time chief executive Paul Philip is going nowhere either.

Who knows whether and how quickly the duo will be able to rebuild trust in the SRA after the biggest reversal in its 17-year history. This is certainly no small task. The watchdog's defiant - even petulant - response to today's report is hardly an ideal start.

Phoenix
30 October 2024 7:43pm
Only one in four views the SRA negatively? I have yet to meet any of its supporters.

Anonymous
29 October 2024 8:41pm
Honesty and integrity are entirely missing from the SRA, at least when it comes to their conduct though they do, of course, expect from those who they regulate.

Robert Batchlor
29 October 2024 5:09pm
LSB REPORT ON THE SRA 29102024
The highly critical report of the Legal Services Board on the SRA comes as no surprise to the readers of the Law Society Gazette. In July 2024 the retiring Parliamentary justice select committee concluded that the SRA was not fit for purpose
The columns of the Gazette over the last few years have shown that the SRA is held in contempt by consumers and the legal profession. There needs to be a high-level inquiry by the Ministry of Justice to establish objectively how reform of the whole structure can improve a failing institution. It is likely that a fundamental review of the provisions of the Legal Services Act 2007 will be necessary.

The failure of the SRA is partly structural and partly routed in the actions and policies of the Chief Executive. There has been a complete failure to ensure the accountability of the SRA to Parliament. There is no evidence that any detailed report on the work of the SRA has ever been provided to Parliament.

The Chief Executive Paul Philip has decreased accountability by limiting public access to Board meetings and undermining the balance between the accountable Solicitors Disciplinary Committee and the unaccountable bureaucracy which he leads. This is exemplified in his attempts to extend the fining powers of the bureaucracy and limit the scope of the SDT.

The SRA Board and the Consumers panel have consistently failed to act independently of the Chief Executive and have openly championed his proposals to extend his powers.
I have regularly identified the evidence from the Trust Pilot survey of consumers in which 99 percent of consumers express their dissatisfaction with the SRA. Paul Philip has never been required to answer his many critics. This is intolerable in a democracy.

The SRA is required by law to be transparent, but the direction of Paul Philip’s actions and policies has militated against openness and public accountability.

The evidence suggests that the SRA is a highly inefficient organisation which is incapable of self-reform. The Law Society should take the lead in campaigning for a high-level inquiry into the SRA and clear proposals for reform.

The actions of the new Labour government in relation to the NHS might provide a model. The Warzi report seems to have provided a framework for change which has gained widespread acceptance. A speedy review of the workings of the 2007 Act by a leading member of the judiciary would provide a possible basis for cha

Ravi Singh-Chumber
29 October 2024 2:36pm
This could be career ending for some, if this was still the age of accountability.

Anonymous
29 October 2024 1:27pm
Don't forget, he is paid considerably more than a High Court judge.

Anonymous
29 October 2024 1:26pm
Time to grab your pension and clear out, some might say.

Let the professionals mop up the mess, i.e. all of those thousands of solicitors who will now foot the bill.

Anonymous
29 October 2024 12:48pm
Can the profession's view of the SRA be surveyed again now!

Marshall Hall
29 October 2024 11:53am
Excellent work Paul - the SRA's own 'press release' to us all this morning was mind-boggling arrogant, and tried to take the credit for 'spotting' the largest legal firm fraud ever committed under their very noses.

Disciplinary steps should be taken against any of those at the SRA who are found to have been 'asleep at the wheel'.

As for only 25% of the profession having a dim view of the SRA - pull the other one SRA. Every lawyer I speak to has nothing but utter contempt for them.

Ben Rigby
29 October 2024 11:04am
Magnificent op-ed in the best tradition of the Gazette, Paul. Chapeau.

The chief executive of the Solicitors Regulation Authority is to step down 'towards the end of 2025' amid an unprecedently turbulent period for the watchdog. In an announcement this morning, the SRA announced that Paul Philip, who has headed the Birmingham-based body for more than 11 years, is to retire.

The SRA has come in for intense criticism from solicitors for its defiant response to last October’s independent report commissioned by super-regulator the Legal Services Board into the spectacular collapse of Axiom Ince, which cost the profession dear in hugely increased payments to the compensation fund. The LSB launched enforcement action against the SRA over the collapse, finding that the regulator failed to act 'adequately, effectively and efficiently'.

Philip and SRA chair Anna Bradley initially indicated that they intended to stay in post, despite calls for one or both to resign. Critics included former SRA board member Tony Williams, who declared that if Bradley and/or Philip would not resign or could not be removed, ‘the non-executive directors on the board at the authority should resign’.

Philip, 62, joined the SRA in 2014, succeeding Antony Townsend. He previously spent more than a decade at the General Medical Council.

Commenting, Law Society CEO Ian Jeffery paid tribute to Philip's 'personal contribution' to regulation of the profession, saying that he had 'achieved much'.

Jeffery added: 'He has led the SRA to a position where it now operates wholly independently of the Law Society and he has achieved much in his time. While the Law Society and the SRA will not always agree, I am grateful for the professional way he has engaged with us. Paul’s departure this autumn comes at a critical time in the history of the SRA. The hard lessons for the SRA from the Axiom and SSB collapses will require a period of deep reflection and significant organisational change. The handover to a new leader will be crucial to how the SRA moves forwards.' The SRA is currently braced for another LSB-commissioned report, also by northern Irish firm Carson McDowell, into the equally spectacular demise of Sheffield bulk claims firm SSB Law. This could potentially leave the regulator even more exposed, as SSB's collapse has become a constituency issue for MPs. Homeowners left with huge legal bills have been lobbying their Westminster representatives for help. Unlike those left nursing huge losses by Axiom Ince, they have no recourse to the compensation fund.

The homeowners had taken no-win no-fee claims with SSB over cavity wall insulation that they said had caused mould and damp in their homes.

In its statement today, the SRA said Philip will depart 'towards the end of 2025, once a suitable replacement has been found'. The process of recruiting his successor will begin next month.

Philip commented: 'It has been a privilege to be able to play such a key role regulating in the public interest. It has been an incredibly interesting, challenging and fulfilling role. I would like to thank all my colleagues in the SRA, as well as the SRA Board – all of whom are united in delivering in the public interest. Both their support and challenge throughout the years has been invaluable. There is always more you would like to do and achieve, but I am proud of the progress we have made. After so long at the helm, this feels like the right time to retire and switch pace. But before then, there is a lot of significant work to progress. I then look forward to handing over to a new chief executive later in the year.’

Tony Williams, an SRA board member for six years and a former managing partner of Clifford Chance, commented: 'Paul has done 11 years and I think there should be time limits [for such jobs] anyway. To his credit he pulled the organisation up by its boostraps when he took over, but it is clearly time for a new broom at the SRA.'

Anna Bradley is to remain as SRA chair until the end of 2026 'to recruit and bed-in a new chief executive and deliver the corporate strategy'. She commented that Philip would be a 'hard act to follow', adding: ‘Paul has led the organisation through transformative change – including reforming our rules to get rid of unnecessary bureaucracy, introducing anti-money laundering regulatory arrangements, and developing and delivering the SQE to make sure everyone can trust that qualifying solicitors are meeting a consistent, high standard.

'When he took over, the SRA was still very much embedded in the Law Society governance structures. He has helped us negotiate our way through to becoming a separate legal entity, significantly improved our operational processes, and ensured we became a more efficient and effective regulator. The SRA is mid-way through its current strategy and last year strengthened its senior management structure, making this a good time for succession to occur.'

Anonymous
27 February 2025 4:42pm
I will miss his signature on my practicing certificate

Marshall Hall
27 February 2025 4:30pm
Anyone else left utterly bemused by the grovelling send off from the Head of the Law Society?

How can this bloke claim to represent our interests when he doesn't call out the truly lamentable behaviour of the SRA during Mr Philip's tenure - not one Solicitor I know has any respect for the SRA.

Andrew Melling
27 February 2025 4:27pm
Topping the to-do list for the new CEO must be sacking their pet prosecuting solicitors and engaging a firm that understands what is reasonable in selecting the level of lawyer and number of lawyers needed for each task and setting the charging rates for those lawyers.

Anonymous
27 February 2025 3:39pm
I suppose like his fellow “administrati” he will now float off into another posting – with The English National Opera, the British Orthodontic Society, Chair of Tower Hamlets, The Concrete Innovation Laboratory? Or something like that where there is no need to know anything about the work of those engaged in these organisations.

Anonymous
27 February 2025 3:09pm
In case TLS, the LSB or members of the SRA board do look at these pages, please understand that we DO want a regulator. We do want a body which takes strong action to protect the reputation of our profession. We do want those who do serious harm to the profession to be punished. We do want deterrence against behaviour likely to cause such harm.

But we want clear rules (which are agreed by those who are actually members of the profession) and we want proportionate action and punishment in cases of infraction.

We want a separation of of powers between, investigators, prosecutors, judge and jury. We want a right of appeal to a trusted third party.

We want costs if we are prosecuted unsuccessfully (or at least a universal defence union/insurance to meet defence costs).

If we have all of that, please throw the (proportionate) book at anyone who breaks the rules. The SRA as currently constituted is none of the above.

Anonymous
27 February 2025 3:02pm
Like all others I am remaining anonymous, to avoid petty recriminations!!

Please let us return to the Law Society regulation. I have been a lawyer for 48 years & my years in tge profession were so good under the LS regulation.

We, as a profession are now ridiculed because of lack of action/ ineffective action by the SRA.

Anonymous
27 February 2025 3:02pm
He has achieved the extraordinary distinction of making the SRA mistrusted by both the profession and the public, partly through the SRA's incompetence and partly through its appalling high-handedness. And the Society and the LSB have allowed this to happen.

Anonymous
27 February 2025 2:57pm
Don't let the doorknob hit you on the way out, sir.

Timothy Nunns
27 February 2025 2:18pm
The LSB needs to read these comments! And maybe the new CEO should be appointed for a fixed-term - four year maximum?

Anonymous
27 February 2025 2:13pm
What's the point of having a lame duck CEO in post? He can have no authority now, so should go straight away.

Will he still be in post when the LSB's SSB report is published? What chance is there that he will be able to respond sensibly to it? If is is damning and suggests, for example, that reform of the SRA is required, he won't have a mandate to undertake such reform.

Of course, the chances are that he will be entirely defensive and suggest the SRA has already moved on.... etc. He shouldn't be in post at all.

Anonymous
27 February 2025 2:12pm
The board needs to look at what has been left behind by Phillips. T

he SRA is despised by both the public and those that they regulate. Look at the comments to any SRA article on the gazette. Most solicitors are afraid to speak out for fear of petty reprisal. The SRA has lost all respect. I

t is time for a change and the existing management all need to go. Bradley "bedding in" the next body suggests it will just be business as usual. The profession needs a regulator prepared to guide and work with the people that they regulate; rather than disproportionally punish every minor indiscretion.

Anonymous
27 February 2025 2:11pm
Not a moment too soon. The SRA is a shambles and the fish stinks from the top.

Anonymous
27 February 2025 2:10pm
It is pointless having a regulator where the majority of those being regulated see that regulator as hostile towards those that the regulator seeks to regulate. Hopefully the next regulator will "lead" and thereby develop a "following" within the profession.

Thereby sensible, necessary, balanced and popular regulations may be put in place for the benefit of the majority in the profession and particularly those smaller firms who have unrelentlessly been picked upon by the SRA for the last 11 years--to no good at all.

Save for some rotten apples, the majority of the profession is well meaning, carrying out a fantastic job for clients and needs to be accepted as such by the regulator who needs to stand back in many instances where its intervention serves little benefit to the public and the profession.

Anonymous
27 February 2025 2:07pm
Just waiting for the one obligatory thumbs down to appear against comments that are not particularly complimentary of this gentleman.

Anonymous
27 February 2025 2:04pm
Made a lucrative career out of..................... I dare not go any further. No loss, good riddance and you can take your friend with you.

Anonymous
27 February 2025 2:00pm
Is this a genuine retirement? In other words, can the Gazette confirm that he is not going to get some sort of pay-off? If he is going to get such a payment, the profession is entitled to know about it, because it is footing the bill.

Anonymous
27 February 2025 1:55pm
When will details of Philip's severance package and pension be made public? Bradley refers to the SRA's "corporate strategy". It's not a "corporate", but if you are going to use that language, then behave like a corporate and publish full remuneration details.

Anonymous
27 February 2025 1:52pm
It must be the jobs of the non-executives to oversee recruitment of the new CEO. Bradley is not a non-executive for this purpose. Better still, she should resign and allow a new Chair to be involved in the process to select a new CEO.

John Moriarty
27 February 2025 1:39pm
Why should a chair who has always supported a failing Chief Exec remain,let alone be involved in the process of choosing and bedding in his successor -and do the 4 solicitor directors actually support this? Philip should be required to leave as soon as is practical-the profession just cannot afford to run the risk of his causing yet more damage

Anonymous
27 February 2025 1:37pm
Am I the only solicitor who is sick and tired of reading humbug plaudits for a departing failed executive? Next we will read this chap has received a severance payment greater than he deserves due to his supposed achievements at being asleep at the wheel when a major fraud has occurred while spending a fortune of our contributions in immediately jumping on some drunken person at a staff outing.

Ravi Singh-Chumber
27 February 2025 1:35pm
On a personal level I met him at Aston University during a SQE consultation with universities. I found him to be a thoroughly nice chap. I wish him well for the future. Change in the SRA's operations ethic is now most welcome.

Anonymous
27 February 2025 1:31pm
Will the Post Office scandal report be another example of the SRA being asleep at the wheel; it clearly didn't supervise in-house solicitors properly!

Lord Trumpton
27 February 2025 1:22pm
Paul’s time at the top’s now complete, Eleven years—no small feat! He’s leaving the fray, But we’ll miss him each day, (Though he might just enjoy the retreat!).

Anonymous
27 February 2025 1:20pm
Hopefully he’ll take the tin eared Chair with him!

Anonymous
27 February 2025 1:17pm
Below: Reading through the comments, it's hard to find any redeeming features of the SRA. Just saying. That's just because there aren't any.

Anonymous
27 February 2025 1:15pm
"Anna Bradley is to remain as SRA chair until the end of 2026 'to recruit and bed-in a new chief executive" -WOW!

Anonymous
27 February 2025 1:11pm
Risen without the slightest trace. Leaves a trail of destruction - past event. He will not be missed. In memoriam: Probably the worst Haiku ever.

Anonymous
27 February 2025 1:06pm
Reading through the comments, it's hard to find any redeeming features of the SRA. Just saying.

Anonymous
27 February 2025 1:06pm
Yes...he should do us all a favour and turn the lights off on his way out!

Anonymous
27 February 2025 1:04pm
Perhaps an opportunity to review the damaging professional indemnity 'minimum terms' and create a hungrier, more competitive insurance market for firms (like other professions have!).

Anonymous
27 February 2025 12:54pm
SRA in a Select Committee (see 15:01 onwards) - "we're not here to be liked"! https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/e880bc08-8311-4627-b65a-674472b8c1cd?in=16:11:46

Anonymous
27 February 2025 12:54pm
I'm not sure quite what prompted this, but for some reason I felt compelled to look up 'defiant' in several dictionaries. Slightly to my surprise none of them suggested this word could be defined as cloth-eared, arrogant, complacent and self-serving.

Anonymous
27 February 2025 12:51pm
We deserve a regulator which works with the profession, not against it.

Anonymous
27 February 2025 12:45pm
Oh dear what a shame never mind. We will miss him - said no one ever. Good riddance - seemed to do all he could to bring what’s left of our once respected profession into disrepute. Shame the rest don’t follow.

Anonymous
27 February 2025 12:01pm
The entire edifice needs to go. The perpetual reform machine which was applauded by bureaucrats and academics both of whom didn't have to endure its flailing perpetual inexperience.

Bring back the time when TLS had first class peer review and people making silly mistakes were given a second chance instead of having their career and livelihood dispatched for the sake of PC.

There only needs to be one regulatory arrangement - the TLS, SDT with appeal to a High Court judge if necessary. Labour and Parliament need to get the message.

Karen Todner
27 February 2025 11:13am
Good. About time. Ms Bradley should be next. Law Society should be actively involved in recruiting the next incumbent.

Anonymous
27 February 2025 11:08am
The current SRA initiatives should be put on hold pending a review by a new chief executive

Anonymous
27 February 2025 11:07am
Well said below. We need a fair regulator NOT a vindictive one. We need the Law Society to fight not be cowed by a broken regulatory system.

Anonymous
27 February 2025 11:02am
You won't find many on here disagreeing with you Anon 10.48 (well maybe a thumbs down from the SRA mole?) - but it is noticeable that the "plaudits" you complain about are very thin on the ground.

Even those who are all but duty-bound to find something nice to say are giving only a qualified "thank you for your service" speech. No doubt Ms Bradley will be a bit more fulsome in due course, and no doubt too, she will see it as her "duty" to oversee the appointment of a replacement CEO who won't be too critical of his or her predecessors.

The other SRA board members need to take control of this job and not let the Chair and/or incumbent CEO run (or be involved in at all!) the process. If they cannot, then, as Tony Williams suggested previously, they must resign immediately and say why they are doing so.

They have the same duties as any other director - and should be held accountable if they don't fulfil them now.

Anonymous
27 February 2025 11:01am
The Law Society despite the comments of its CEO must stop walking in the shadow of the SRA. It must take a KC opinion to see if the Internal Governance Rules imposed by the LSB are unlawful. In short it must become more muscular and stick up for its members.

Stephen Larcombe
27 February 2025 10:51am
It was Joshua Rosenberg who said that ‘regulation’ was a two-way street’ Clearly the confidence which ought to exist between the regulator and solicitors no longer exists and hasn’t been there for years.

I have seen solicitors totally shattered by the wholly disproportionate actions of the SRA. There is now an opportunity for somebody new at the helm, able to implement a more balanced approach to the regulatory aims of the Legal Services Act. The SRA has also been criticised by its own regulator and so lessons must be learned.

Anonymous
27 February 2025 10:48am
I’m sorry, I’m not going to join in with the plaudits. The SRA is universally despised. It is lazy, incompetent, a profligate spender, woke to the point of stupidity and an embarrassment to the profession. It became all of these things on Mr Phillip’s watch - he has been a disaster.

Let’s get somebody who is competent, who understands the profession and who will focus on the big things rather than the easy little things (like fining firms for inconsequential breaches of obscure rules). We’ve all had enough of the SRA and its petty behaviours. We need a supportive regulator not a power crazed, cash hungry attack dog wielding a big stick. Good riddance Mr Phillip, you will not be missed.

Christopher Gough
27 February 2025 10:35am
I hope that it is decided that the SRA needs a solicitor with experience of private practice to fulfil the Chief Executive role. It is not a job for people who drift from one compliance role to the next trying to frame policy for a profession they have no real connection with.

JEFFREY SHAW, AT NETHER EDGE LAW
27 February 2025 10:33am
Will someone with real-world experience of working as a solicitor (no, not you Jonathan Reynolds) be appointed? We can but hope.

Anonymous
27 February 2025 10:29am
If the board want to regain the trust of the profession they need to be very careful when selecting a replacement here

Anonymous
27 February 2025 10:13am
Is not the ultimate indictment that most commentators on the SRA feel compelled to do so

The Law Society must now regain its confidence to free solicitors from the regulatory shackles that have done so much damage to the profession.