SRA decision to close board meeting to public scrutiny is potentially unlawful, says leading regulatory solicitor

The Solicitors Regulation Authority’s (SRA) decision to hold closed board meetings in order to prevent public and press scrutiny is a breach of its regulatory obligations, a leading solicitor in the field has said.

Leading regulatory solicitor Paul Bennett has pointed out to Legal Futures that the SRA is required to be “transparent and accountable” by the Legal Services Act 2007, and its decision to close off its board meetings from public scrutiny would seem to defy this obligation. However, Bennett was also keen to emphasise the “huge amount of good work” done by the current SRA executive team and that his personal dealings with the SRA had been with people who are “highly professional [and] are keen to do the right thing”.

Nonetheless, the closed board meetings merit criticism of such an important regulator. Bennett commented: “The new lack of transparency from the board is a concern. Good regulation carries the confidence of the profession, and the public, and why the SRA thinks its work is more sensitive than say the General Medical Council or Health & Care Professions Council is unclear and difficult to justify in my opinion. In my view not being fully transparent with the press, the profession and consumers is potentially unlawful and the SRA risk someone challenging the board’s decision before the courts to ensure the SRA is open and transparent in its actions. Section 28 [of the Legal Services Act] also requires the SRA to have regard to ‘best regulatory practice’ and closing the doors to its board and its public interest-focused decision-making is difficult, perhaps impossible, to justify against the legal obligations arising from the LSA. In particular the transparency of other regulators now put the SRA as not only incompatible in terms of enforcement, which is a long-held weakness of the SRA whose disciplinary processes are more onerous, but in terms of a lack of transparency with comparable regulators.”

The SRA’s decision to hold closed meetings has also been widely criticised in the media.