The UK's New Regulatory Code Where Firms Carry the Can
Legal professionals and their employer firms must heed the writing on the wall in this week's new set of standards — the SRA's regulatory focus has shifted.
November 18, 2019 at 06:01 AM
4 minute read
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) will launch its new set of Standards and Regulations (often referred to as the "StaRs") on November 25, 2019.
Unsurprisingly, there are some changes in content and structure due to the simplification and rationalisation of the existing rules, but it is actually the more nuanced changes, in terms of underlying policy and overall regulatory approach, which firms and lawyers should be focusing on. For the StaRs really usher in a new era in legal regulation, where there will be a distinct shift in the SRA's priorities as a regulator and in what it expects of the firms it regulates.
A key change is that there will be greater emphasis in future on the ethical obligations of firms the SRA regulates. The seven SRA Principles set out the high-level standards of ethical behaviour expected.
Crucially, these principles will apply both in respect of professional life and, where appropriate, life outside of work, and they apply to all those the SRA regulates – individual solicitors, registered European lawyers, registered foreign lawyers, and law firms, as well as all their non-solicitor employees (including those with management responsibilities).
The SRA's ambition is to create an ethical culture within firms, where everyone is encouraged to become more aware of their ethical obligations and the need to be able to exercise professional judgement and be accountable for their own actions. Firms will be expected to support all their staff to comply with these obligations and to foster a firm culture based upon them.
On top of this, by creating a separate Code of Conduct for Firms and simplifying the Code of Conduct for Individuals, the message is quite clear that the SRA expects all those it regulates to understand what is expected of them.
In this new world, there will be very little room for excuses premised upon a lack of understanding as to the applicable ethical and professional obligations. The days are long gone when a firm might have been able to turn a blind eye to the suspect conduct of its employees or managers on the basis that responsibility to take any actions lays solely at the door of the SRA. Going forward, the SRA expects firms to take more responsibility for the actions or inactions of employees and to promote a culture where allegations of misconduct are taken seriously and investigated at firm level, and where prompt and early engagement with the SRA becomes routine practice.
The teeth in all of this comes in the guise of the SRA's revised Enforcement Strategy, launched in February 2019, which signposted what the SRA sees as the 'big ticket' issues, and where the SRA intends to focus its regulatory action.
It includes detail of what the SRA will take into account when determining the seriousness of any concerns raised about a failure to meet its standards and makes clear that the purpose of the principles and the codes of conduct is to show "what a competent and ethical legal profession looks like". It leaves no doubt that its regulatory approach is to "promote a culture in which ethical values and behaviours are embedded"; in fact, this is one of three main objectives, alongside ensuring a strong, competitive and highly effective legal market; and ensuring a focus on quality and client care.
So, legal professionals and their employer firms must heed the writing on the wall – regulatory focus has shifted. While individuals must still comply with their professional and ethical obligations, a clear responsibility will be placed at the door of firms to promote a culture where individuals are empowered to make good decisions and are able to justify why they made them.
This is already evident, arguably, in recent enforcement action the SRA has taken, where firms are carrying the can. Under the new StaRs regime, this is only likely to happen more.
Iain Miller is a partner and Jessica Clay a senior associate in the legal services regulatory team at Kingsley Napley.
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 AllCan Labour's New Budget Steady the Ship? Big Moves On UK Tax Reform and Fiscal Stability
5 minute readMexico's Judicial Reforms and the Implications for Foreign Investors
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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