£150m cap on fines for Tesco law breaches is 'too low', says SRA
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has challenged the £150m cap on Tesco law licensing breaches recently set out by the Legal Services Board (LSB). The SRA has questioned the maximum penalty recommended by the LSB last month, citing the miners' compensation case that saw 500 firms paid £1bn for acting for sick coalminers. A raft of firms involved later faced claims over their conduct in handling the work.
January 28, 2011 at 09:38 AM
2 minute read
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has challenged the £150m cap on Tesco law licensing breaches recently set out by the Legal Services Board (LSB).
The SRA has questioned the maximum penalty recommended by the LSB last month, citing the miners' compensation case that saw 500 firms paid £1bn for acting for sick coalminers. A raft of firms involved later faced claims over their conduct in handling the work.
While the SRA acknowledged that potential fines of £50m for individuals and £150m for entities would act as a "significant deterrent", the regulator warned that the change in regime will "introduce new entrants to the market" and it may be dangerous to rely on current turnover figures to determine appropriate fines.
The SRA stipulated that "regulated persons should not profit from their misconduct" and questioned whether the proposed maximum penalty would cover all possible scenarios.
The SRA consultation response states: "A cap of £150m could be too low to deal with a scandal equivalent to miners' compensation, particularly if fewer firms gain contracts to carry out high volume work.
"£1bn was paid to 500 law firms in miners' cases. A similar scheme in the future might involve a much smaller number of firms with consequential rewards being much higher."
However, the SRA did agree that a maximum fine should take precedence over a calculation based on turnover that would differ in its impact depending on firm size.
Meanwhile, the £50m maximum penalty for individuals has been deemed by the body as "sufficient regardless of medium-term market developments".
The ABS regime, set to officially come into force on 6 October this year, will allow companies to invest in law firms and provide legal services outside of traditional partnerships.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllBroadcom Hires From Nuclear Giant to Appoint French Legal Head
GCs Say They are Getting 'Edged Out' of UK Boardrooms
'I Won’t Name the Firm, But...'—Barratt Redrow's Legal Head on External Counsel Red Flags
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250