Second SRA 'racism review' receives cautious welcome from Society of Black Lawyers

The Society of Black Lawyers (SBL) has welcomed a recent decisioin by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) to carry out a second review into allegations of racial discrimination by the regulator against black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) solicitors.

More Information

The second review comes in the wake of the publication of the SBL’s ‘Breaking the Silence’ report into allegations of racism and wrongdoing by the SRA in April 2012. The SBL report raised concerns about the way in which the SRA undertakes its regulatory, investigative, prosecution and adjudication (RIPA) functions. It concluded that:

“It is hard not to conclude that the SRA is institutionally racist and is not being held accountable for its actions. It has far worse rates of disparity of treatment than those found in police stop and search statistics across the country. As a regulator, it appears to be acting with impunity against solicitors in small practices and this is having a disproportionate impact on BAME solicitors. At the same time, the SRA steers clear of tackling the larger law firms, even when major breaches of the Solicitor Practice or Accounting Rules are brought to light.”

Core Facts

The 'Breaking the Silence: Who is regulating the regulator?' report was submitted to the Legal Services Board (LSB) in response to the Board's consultation on its equality duty objectives.
The SRA has been subject to external monitoring on equality issues since 2007 as a result of its disproportionate targeting of African, Caribbean and Asian solicitors. An internal report, published in 2006 could not explain why ethnic minority solicitors were five times more likely to be investigated, suspended or struck off than their white counterparts.
In July 2008, an independent investigation conducted by Lord Herman Ouseley into allegations of racism, discrimination and victimisation within the SRA found extensive evidence of institutional racism within the regulatory body. In 2007, Asian solicitors comprised 5.5% of the professional population, yet were the targets of 18% of interventions. Black solicitors faced even starker disproportionality: at only 1.6% of the population, their professional lives were disrupted by 15% of the interventions. The Lord Ouseley’s report also revealed similarly biased statistics in other areas of SRA activity.
In 2007, all of the SRA’s interventions were into firms with four or fewer partners. Since the majority of BME solicitors practice in small firms, they are more likely to face investigation and intervention. In contrast, the large and predominantly white “Magic Circle” firms enjoy virtual immunity from regulation because the SRA has neither the expertise nor the clout to surmount the considerable defensive resources available to such large firms.

Quotes

“Whilst we welcome this second review as a positive response to the deep concerns that the SBL has raised, the terms of reference for such a review must be agreed with members of the SRA’s Equality and Diversity External Implementation Group. No limitations should be placed on the case files to be examined and those members of the profession who feel that they have been treated unfairly by the SRA should be allowed to submit their case for review.”

SBL Chair, Peter Herbert OBE commented: