There appears to be growing evidence that the Solicitors Regulation Authority,(SRA), the body that regulates and upholds professional standards for lawyers, is inconsistent in its judgements, over sympathetic to lawyers, particularly from large firms, and is not regarded by the public and whistleblowers as protecting their interests.

I took up the treatment of two whistleblowers who separately complained to the SRA about lawyers acting for the Sellafield nuclear waste site and the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) recently. . Both complaints were rejected by the SRA who said the lawyer had behaved correctly. Yet they raised serious questions about the use of Non Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) to crush people complaining to regulators and use Subject Access Requests and Freedom of Information requests to obtain information from public authorities.

One, Alison McDermott, who lost a consultancy contract after exposing bullying at the nuclear plant, even asked her former MP, Philip Davies, to complain about her complaint to the SRA being used against her by lawyers in a costs hearing. The chief executive of the SRA, Paul Philip, rejected this and cited the NDA’s view that she had acted “‘vexatiously, abusively, disruptively or otherwise unreasonably’ in the way that
her employment proceedings were conducted.” In fact both organisations lost most of their £40,000 claim against her.

She had previously complained about Deshpal Paneseer KC, a barrister from Old Square Chambers, representing the nuclear site, for the language he used against her saying she was a fundamental liar but got nowhere with this.

The costs claim included trying to get retrospectively the costs of a freedom of information request that Sellafield had granted. In fact there is no provision under the FOI Act for retrospective claims – the public authority has to decide within 20 working days of the application whether to grant it or not.

The second whistleblower – who I have not named – complained to the SRA about Emma Mills, a solicitor with DLA Piper, a proposed NDA ( this one known as a COT3) which demanded he withdraw all FOIs and Subject Access Requests and a complaint to a regulatory authority or face a £14,000 costs hearing despite withdrawing his case at an employment tribunal.

He wrote : “I am a Whistleblower acting in the public interest, and I regard the behaviour of Emma Mills and the Respondent as menaces and harassment, pushing me to accede unwillingly into signing a COT 3 contract which is not in my best interest, and under the threat of pursuing me for costs if I do not sign the COT3 contract.”

Again the SRA rejected this and again it is not lawful under the FOI Act as there is no provision in the Act for an organisation to ban a person using FOI. This was confirmed by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Inconsistences in judgements

The inconsistency is shown by a recent decision by the SRA over a similar case reported on Linked In by Loopline Media. The full article is here. A law firm Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe (UK) LLP had been employed by a German firm Payone, a Digital payments service firm, based in Frankfurt with employees in the UK. The report found the law firm had tried to impose a settlement with a whistleblower to withdraw a complaint to the Pensions Regulator that it was breaking UK law by failing to provide a proper pension for employees. The SRA found the law firm had could have negatively impacted the reputation of the legal profession. Orrick’s conduct was found to fall short of the SRA’s ethical standards, prompting regulatory interception by way of a letter of advice. 

However the firm have been treated with kid gloves. No disciplinary action is being taken and a full report is not being published. The Pensions Regulator is investigating the firm.

Damning conclusion on the Legal Lens blog

The state of the SRA is thoroughly criticised in a post, also on Linked in, by John Barwell, a data privacy expert. In a damning blog, he points out multiple failures by the SRA. questioning whether a body funded by solicitors can really police solicitors. His damning conclusion is :

“The Solicitors Regulation Authority was established to protect the public and ensure that the legal profession operates with integrity. However, its track record shows that it is a regulator in name only, failing to achieve these goals. The mishandling of cases involving prominent law firms is not just an isolated failure—it is symptomatic of a regulator that has lost its way. Without significant reform, the SRA risks becoming an even more useless entity, incapable of holding the legal profession accountable. It is time for the SRA to step up, enforce its regulations consistently, and restore public confidence in its ability to regulate the legal profession effectively. Until then, it will remain a toothless watchdog, incapable of fulfilling its vital role in the justice system.”

I would add more thing – there is a question mark over its choice of solicitors to do its work – especially if you are a whistleblower in the NHS. The law firm which holds the contract is Capsticks, which also holds a major contract with the NHS to represent trusts. It is fiercely proactive in pursuing whistleblowers trying to expose patient safety concerns in the NHS and earns a substantial income – funded by the taxpayer – to represent trusts in these cases. If Capsticks is seen as bringing the profession into disrepute – a complainant may report them to the SRA only to find that Capsticks handles their cases. I know of one barrister who did spot what he thought was bad behaviour but he told me it was not worth going to the SRA about Capsticks since the SRA was their client.

I asked the SRA for a comment on my two cases last week but they have not released it yet. I will put it up when it arrives.