The SRA's shift to outcomes-focused regulation has left many partners puzzled, with half remaining uncertain of the realities of the new regime and only a quarter supporting the changes. Sofia Lind reports

Nearly half of City partners do not understand the move towards principles-based regulation by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), with a similar number believing the body has not been effective in its efforts to build links with commercial law firms.

The results come as part of a Legal Week Big Question survey focusing on the SRA's move away from prescriptive rules-based regulation to a more risk-driven approach known as outcomes-focused regulation (OFR), which will come into effect on 6 October.

Nearly half of respondents (49%) said they had mixed feelings about the move, with 24% saying they were 'not very' supportive and around 27% supporting the measures. Against this, 50% of respondents said they did not understand the move or the associated changes in governance that law firms will need to have in place by this time next year.

Norton Rose head of compliance Jonathan Ody said: "It is probably an accurate reflection that there are mixed feelings out there; however, in principle I think that the profession should move towards OFR. With a faults-based regime you can go along for quite a while until a fault occurs without noticing, while if you are focusing on the outcome you need to make sure you have the appropriate systems in place. This will raise standards within the profession."

Hogan Lovells co-chair John Young said: "In principle I am a fan of the concept of OFR but it will all depend on with which level of sensitivity it is operated by the regulator. I don't yet understand the new regime in detail, since I have not had time to read the handbook, but I think that in principle it is a good move."

Meanwhile, almost half of respondents (47%) viewed the SRA's attempts to build links with commercial firms and invest resources in becoming a more effective regulator of such firms as either 'poor' or 'could be better'. Around 21% said the regulator had done a good job so far, with the remainder describing efforts as 'ok'.

In general, just over half of respondents (53%) said regulation of solicitors in the UK was either poor or could be better, with less than one-third describing it as either 'effective' or 'very effective'.

Ody said: "The SRA has made huge strides towards becoming more effective. Time will tell whether they will succeed but it is a good step in the right direction."

Respondents to the survey expressed mixed feelings about the SRA's move to become a regulator of alternative business structures (ABSs) when these become allowed as part of the implementation of the Legal Services Act in October this year. Half of the survey respondents described themselves as supportive or very supportive, but nearly a third said they were either not sure about it or not confident that the SRA is the right body to regulate ABSs.

Berwin Leighton Paisner managing partner Neville Eisenberg said: "There are two areas where I have a slight concern. The first is the relatively short timeframe for the SRA to gain feedback ahead of the implementation in October, and the other is how good the SRA's system is to manage this new approach. However, neither is a matter impossible to correct. Similarly, provided that the SRA puts the right systems in place there is no reason why it should not be a good regulator of ABSs."

Meanwhile, respondents were relatively supportive of the move by the SRA to publish a new combined Handbook and Solicitors Code of Conduct, with half of them saying they back the updated handbook.

For more, see: