February Compliance Round Up
Barbara Spoor LL.B (Hons)
Managing Director @ CRCS Legal | Complaints and Compliance Handling
CRCS Legal February 2024 Newsletter
Complaint Resolution Compliance Solutions
Welcome to our February 2024 newsletter!
?
Mr Bates and the Post Office
Here are the comments from the SRA dated 19 January 2024.
Paul Philip, SRA Chief Executive, said: 'The impact of this miscarriage of justice on so many individuals is tragic. We have live investigations into the actions of lawyers in these cases.
'Although the range of issues we are investigating is complex, the fundamentals are simple. The public expect solicitors to behave ethically. They must act independently and do the right thing in the interests of justice.
'We will take action where we find they have failed to do so. This is vital to protect the public, maintain trust in the profession, and send a clear message that any solicitor behaving unethically should expect serious consequences.
'We will act as swiftly as we can, but it is important that we get this right. We owe that to everyone impacted in this case and the wider public.'
The below is a link from the Law Society Gazette on the 26 April 2021:?????
It remains to be seen what action the SRA take in regard to this matter.?
Update on SBB Law
As referenced in our January Newsletter, the SSB Group have entered Administration. There is huge local and national coverage claiming that their clients are now facing adverse costs on failed claims. It has been reported that clients are being pursued for costs payable to the other side ranging from ￡10,000 to ￡50,000 and averaging around ￡35,000.
Hugh James Solicitors are quoted as saying that they are in discussions with other potential professional negligence clients and believe the total number could exceed 1,400.
Own interest conflict and why it is not a good idea to sue your own client….
A solicitor was fined for acting for clients in a property dispute knowing they had a possible negligence claim against the firm for causing the litigation in the first place.
The solicitor also threatened one of the clients that he might take libel action over information they had provided to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA).
In a regulatory settlement agreement published by the SRA, the firm acted for Clients A and B on the purchase of a residential property.
The owner of an adjacent farm gave an assurance that they would be able to access electricity, but no advice was given on whether the conveyance would make this legally binding.
Eventually the clients instructed the firm to act in a dispute with the farm owner about access to electricity.
Even the other side’s solicitor said the firm were conflicted and should not act, but they continued to do so.
The litigation was unsuccessful, and the clients instructed a professional negligence barrister to pursue the firm. The barrister also reported his concerns to the SRA.
By threating to sue the client for defamation, for the statement that he made to the SRA, the solicitor breached rules 1.2 (“You do not abuse your position by taking unfair advantage of clients or others”) and 7.5 (“You do not attempt to prevent anyone from providing information to the SRA…”) of the SRA Code of Conduct for solicitors.
Bizarrely the fine was only ￡750. However, the SRA said the figure was determined “as a basic penalty based on a percentage of his gross annual income in the most recent tax year prior to submission to the decision maker”.
The solicitor also has to pay the costs of ￡2,175.
Compare and Contrast: A different SRA decision.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority has issued its biggest ever fine for a solicitor convicted of a drink-driving offence.
A solicitor agreed to pay ￡13,836 after his conviction for driving a car while under the influence of alcohol. The fine from the SRA was some 31 times higher than the financial penalty issued by the court.
The SRA last year amended its approach to take account of income when issuing fines against firm and individuals.
On average, drink-driving convictions previously resulted in fines of around ￡1,500, but the revised approach – combined with the SRA increasing its maximum fining powers to ￡25,000 – mean than much larger penalties will become common.
?
LeO and their delay.
There are still massive delays at LeO.? The investigation queue (pre assessment pool) reached 5,862 on 31 March 2022 and fell 27% to 4,282 a year later, but a long way short of the original target and goal of effectively clearing it to a working level of 500-1,000 by 31 March 2024.
The figure was revised last summer to ‘fewer than 2,000 cases’ but in its draft 2024/25 business plan, published last October, LeO admitted that it would not meet that target either. It forecast 2,856 cases still in the queue on 31 March 2024, reducing to around 1,650 a year later.
领英推荐
Is it time for LeO to outsource?? They have amended their scheme rules to allow this to happen, so perhaps they should consider this.? It is unfair to have a complaint hanging over the head of a firm for a lengthy period of time causing distress and worry about what will happen.?
At CRCS Legal we are used to dealing with complaints from LeO, take some of the stress away and speak to us about how we can help you deal with complaints internally and if they have been escalated to LeO.?
LeO new postal address
Have you updated your complaints procedure?? Have you updated your website?? Have you updated your terms of business and standard letters?
From 22 January 2024, all written correspondence should be sent to:
Legal Ombudsman
PO Box 6167
Slough
SL1 0EH
?
Politically Exposed Persons – changes to the Regulations
An amendment to the money laundering regulations came into force on 10 January 2024.? This amendment means that the status of UK politically exposed persons (PEPs) are treated differently from overseas PEPs.?
You will still need to carry out EDD but they must be treated as a lower risk that overseas PEPs.
If however other factors increase the risk to the firm of a UK PEP, then they should be treated as a high risk.?
Have you amended your policies to reflect these changes? CRCS Legal can help you do this.? Please contact us for further information.?
Employment Tribunal Fees – a backward step?
The government is proposing to reintroduce fees for employment tribunal claims, nearly seven years after the Supreme Court quashed the previous charging regime as unlawful.
Tribunal fees were introduced in 2013 by the coalition government, under a fees order made by then lord chancellor Chris Grayling. Straightforward disputes attracted issue and hearing fees totalling ￡390, while for more complicated matters the charges totalled ￡1,200. The Employment Appeal Tribunal attracted total fees of ￡1,600.
The fees were withdrawn in July 2017, after trade union Unison successfully argued before the Supreme Court that they prevented thousands of employees, particularly people on low incomes, from securing justice. The Supreme Court ruled that it breached both UK and EU Law.
The number of cases dropped by 70% after the 2013 introduction of charges.
The fees proposed in today’s consultation are lower in comparison. The Law Society Gazette reports that a ￡55 issue fee will be payable when bringing a claim to the tribunal. This will remain at ￡55 where a claim is brought by multiple claimants. Each judgment, direction, decision or order appealed to the EAT would attract a ￡55 fee. No hearing fees are planned.
Help with fees would be given to those ‘most in need’.
The Government said that it expected the fees to generate ￡1.3m-￡1.7m a year towards the ￡80m annual cost of the employment tribunals.
How can CRCS Legal Ltd help?
The risk of non-compliance is real, serious, and costly.? We can provide:
A comprehensive compliance and web-site health check. A thorough look at your policies and procedures with solutions for any non-compliance.
Technical compliance support on an ad hoc or retainer basis. This will give you direct access to compliance professionals.
Complaint handling and assistance with the Legal Ombudsman (LeO) We can investigate the complaints, make recommendations, and draft your complaint response. We have years of experience of dealing with Le0.
Compliance training – one off training courses and comprehensive training programmes.? We can help you comply with the SRA’s continuing competence requirements.
File reviews and audits – detailed and in-depth reviews in accordance with the SRA supervision requirements.
Bespoke Compliance policies, procedures and templates.?
Assistance with Lexcel accreditation and visits
Anti-Money Laundering (AML) – a review of procedures and policies update
Transparency rules – Are you publishing the correct costs and complaints information?
GDPR and the ICO – including managing data breaches and SARs.
Advice on PII renewal
Assistance with SRA investigations and prosecutions
Merger and Acquisitions- assessment of regulatory compliance issues and due diligence.
Take control of your risk and contact us today for a free no obligation chat about your firms need and how we can tailor our Complaint Resolution and Compliance Solutions to help you thrive in a cost effective way.?[email protected] or 03302210511