How many investigations due to referrals by Judges?

Dear Mr Poultney

Freedom of Information Request - Our Ref: FOI/BS/488

Thank you for your email dated 20 October 2010 to the Solicitors
Regulation Authority (SRA) requesting access to information. I am treating
your request for information under the Law Society Freedom of Information
Code of Practice ("the Code").

You have requested access to the following information:

"For each year since your Office began please state:

1. How many complaints against solicitors you investigated?

2. How many of those complaints were brought / referred to you by
Judges? - please name the Judges responsible?

3. How many of those complaints were brought / referred to you by
Court staff? - please name the Courts responsible?

4. How many of those complaints were brought / referred to you by
other Legal Professionals?

5. How many those complaints were brought / referred to you by
members of the public?

6. If the answers to questions 2 to 5 do not total the number in
question 1 - please list the other types of complainants together
with the numbers of each type.

For the current year (2010) please give the numbers TO DATE and
state when the year end is."

The SRA is a part of the Law Society but acts independently carrying out
its regulatory functions. The Law Society is not covered by the Freedom of
Information Act (the FOIA) as it is not a designated authority, but has
adopted its own voluntary Code of Practice which closely reflects the
FOIA. The Code may be found at:

[1]http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/documents/d...

I am currently dealing with your request. Bob Stanley, Information
Compliance Manager will aim to respond formally by 18 November 2010 which
is 20 working days from the receipt of your request.

Yours sincerely

Joao Curro
Information Compliance Officer - Legal Services
The Law Society, 113 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1PL
t: 020 7242 1222 (Ext 4539)
f: 020 7320 5685
[2]www.lawsociety.org.uk
P Go green - keep it on screen

This e-mail is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient then
you must not copy it, forward it, use it for any purpose, or disclose it
to another person. Instead please return it to the sender immediately and
copy your communication to [email address]. Please then
delete your copy from your system. Please also note that the author of
this e-mail is not authorised to conclude any contract on behalf of the
Law Society by e-mail.

Be a part of the most prestigious event in the legal calendar, book your
Excellence Awards 2010 table now by emailing
[email address].

To help us improve our service, calls may be monitored or recorded for
quality and training purposes.
Thank you.

References

Visible links
1. http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/documents/d...
2. http://www.emailhosts.com/ct/ctcount.php...

Dear Mr Poultney

Freedom of Information Request - Our Ref: FOI/BS/488

Further to my colleague Joao Curro's email of 21 October 2010 please find
below the response to your request for information under the Law Society
Freedom of Information Code of Practice ("the Code").

You have requested access to the following information:

For each year since your Office began please state:

1. How many complaints against solicitors you investigated?

* Between February 2007 and October 2010 the SRA has received 21,856
allegations of misconduct that have resulted in a conduct
investigation.

2. How many of those complaints were brought / referred to you by
Judges? - please name the Judges responsible?

* Although the individual making the allegation is recorded on our
system, we do not consistently hold information on whether these
individuals were Judges.

3. How many of those complaints were brought / referred to you by
Court staff? - please name the Courts responsible?

* Although the individual making the allegation is recorded on our
system, we do not consistently hold information on whether these
individuals were Court staff.

4. How many of those complaints were brought / referred to you by
other Legal Professionals?

* Although the individual making the allegation is recorded on our
system, we do not consistently hold information on whether these
individuals were Legal Professionals.

5. How many those complaints were brought / referred to you by
members of the public?

* As we cannot define the criteria set out in questions 2-4, we
cannot give you the number of members of the public.

6. If the answers to questions 2 to 5 do not total the number in
question 1 - please list the other types of complainants together
with the numbers of each type.

* Please see above.

For the current year (2010) please give the numbers TO DATE and
state when the year end is.

* There have been 5,115 allegations of misconduct that have resulted
in a conduct investigation this year to date (January - October).
We count the year end in December for these purposes.

I trust the above information resolves your request.
Yours sincerely
Bob Stanley
Information Compliance Manager - Legal Services
The Law Society, 113 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1PL
t: 020 7242 1222 (x4117)
f: 020 7320 5685
[1]www.lawsociety.org.uk
Go green - keep it on screen

This e-mail is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient then
you must not copy it, forward it, use it for any purpose, or disclose it
to another person. Instead please return it to the sender immediately and
copy your communication to [email address]. Please then
delete your copy from your system. Please also note that the author of
this e-mail is not authorised to conclude any contract on behalf of the
Law Society by e-mail.

Be a part of the most prestigious event in the legal calendar, book your
Excellence Awards 2010 table now by emailing
[email address].

To help us improve our service, calls may be monitored or recorded for
quality and training purposes.
Thank you.

References

Visible links
1. http://www.emailhosts.com/ct/ctcount.php...

Dear Mr Poultney

The Law Society does not have an internal review process for FoI
requests but under sections 17 and 18 of our Code (link below) you have
the right to have the matter referred to our FoI Adjudicator.

[1]http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/documents/d...

Please let me know if you would like the matter referred.

Yours sincerely

Bob Stanley
Information Compliance Manager - Legal Services
The Law Society, 113 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1PL
t: 020 7242 1222 (x4117)
f: 020 7320 5685
[2]www.lawsociety.org.uk
Go green - keep it on screen

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Poultney

Thank you for your email.

I have today referred this matter to the Law Society's Freedom of
Information Adjudicator and you will be hearing from him in due course.

Yours sincerely

Bob Stanley
Information Compliance Manager - Legal Services
The Law Society, 113 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1PL
t: 020 7242 1222 (x4117)
f: 020 7320 5685
[1]www.lawsociety.org.uk
Go green - keep it on screen

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Poultney

Please find below the response to your follow up questions which were
included in your email of 3 November to my colleague, Joao Curro.

The questions were as follows:

Of the 21,856 allegations of misconduct that have resulted in a
conduct investigation between February 2007 and October 2010 please
state:

1. How many of those complaints can you identify as being brought /
referred to you by Judges? - please name the Judges responsible?

2. How many of those complaints can you identify as being brought /
referred to you by Court staff? - please name the Courts
responsible?

3. How many of those complaints can you identify as being brought /
referred to you by other Legal Professionals?

4. How many of those complaints can you identify as being brought /
referred to you by Members of the Public?

The Society is unable to comply with these requests as to do so would
involve disproportionate effort such that the cost of complying would
exceed the appropriate limit of *450 set out in section 3 (3) of the
Government's Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit
and Fees) Regulations 2004 (link below).

[1]http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.asp...

The Society's computer systems do not record the information you are
requesting so to compile the information would involve a manual inspection
of each physical file.

I am sorry I have been unable to assist with your information request on
this occasion.

Yours sincerely

Bob Stanley
Information Compliance Manager - Legal Services
The Law Society, 113 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1PL
t: 020 7242 1222 (x4117)
f: 020 7320 5685
[2]www.lawsociety.org.uk
Go green - keep it on screen

This e-mail is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient then
you must not copy it, forward it, use it for any purpose, or disclose it
to another person. Instead please return it to the sender immediately and
copy your communication to [email address]. Please then
delete your copy from your system. Please also note that the author of
this e-mail is not authorised to conclude any contract on behalf of the
Law Society by e-mail.

To help us improve our service, calls may be monitored or recorded for
quality and training purposes.

Thank you.

References

Visible links
1. http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.asp...
2. http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/

Dear Mr Poultney

The Solicitors Regulation Authority receives complaints from all
sections of society but does not record this information on its computer
systems. As stated in my email of earlier today, to provide answers to
your questions would involve a manual search of all complaints. The cost
of this would be in excess of the 'appropriate limit' set out in the
Government's Fees Regulations.

Yours sincerely

Bob Stanley
Information Compliance Manager - Legal Services
The Law Society, 113 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1PL
t: 020 7242 1222 (x4117)
f: 020 7320 5685
[1]www.lawsociety.org.uk
Go green - keep it on screen

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Poultney,

I act as the independent freedom of information adjudicator to whom people
can appeal if they believe they have been refused information by the Law
Society in a way which is inappropriate.

A few days ago the Society's Information Compliance Manager, Mr Bob
Stanley, informed me that you wanted me to adjudicate over the Society's
refusal to answer a series of questions you had asked in an email of 20
October to the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Mr Stanley also provided
me with a copy of the correspondence between you on this matter.

Having read the correspondence it appeared to me that the Law Society had
not answered the "interim" questions you had asked in a later email of 3
November and I suggested to the Society that it should do so before I
could take the question of adjudication further.

I see that yesterday Mr Stanley emailed you with the Society's answer,
namely that it was unable to provide the information you had asked for,
because the cost would be prohibitive, bearing in mind that the data was
not held electronically in a form which would easily enable it to be
interrogated in the way that you wished.

I am now writing to ask you whether, in the light of Mr Stanley's most
recent reply, you wish me to adjudicate on this matter. If you would like
me to, the procedure is that I will invite both the Society and you (if
you wish) to make a written submission to me about why the Society's
decision is or is not in accordance with the provisions of its Freedom of
Information Code, a copy of which I believe you have already been directed
to.

If you would like me to take this matter forward for adjudication I would
be very grateful if you could let me know within the next seven days (that
is, by Thursday 18 November), otherwise I will conclude that this matter
is closed. I shall copy this email to Mr Stanley so that he is aware of
the way I propose to proceed.

Yours sincerely

Richard Ayre

Dear Mr Poultney,

Thank you for your email of yesterday. It asked a lot of questions but
did not answer the one question I had asked.

Could you please now indicate whether you wish me to adjudicate on the
matter or not? If I do so, it will entail inviting submissions from both
you and the Law Society about whether the Society has acted in accordance
with its FoI Code.

Yours sincerely

Richard Ayre

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Poultney,

I have received your email of this morning but it seems to me that you
have still not answered the question of whether, in the light of the
latest response you had from the Law Society, you want me to proceed to
adjudicate.

In the circumstances I think the fairest way forward is for me to assume
that you do. However, in these unusual circumstances I think I will take
the second paragraph of your latest email as indicating that you accept
that, if I can establish that the information you have sought is not kept
on a database which is readily searchable by the necessary criteria, then
the Law Society has acted appropriately by refusing to supply it to you on
the grounds that the cost of doing so would be prohibitive.

That being the case I do not intend to ask either the Law Society or you
to make any further submission. I will now take whatever steps are
necessary to establish the facts about the way the information is recorded
and I will then adjudicate accordingly. I shall copy this email to Mr
Stanley so that he knows how I propose to proceed.

I will be in touch when that process is complete.

Yours faithfully

Richard Ayre

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Poultney,

I was able to go to the Law Society today and examine the complaints
database. As you will see from the attached adjudication, I can confirm
that there is no way of readily searching the database by the criteria you
had enquired about.

I will ask the Law Society to publish this adjudication on its website, as
is usual in FoI cases.

Yours sincerely

Richard Ayre

Dear Mr Poultney,

Thank you for your email of earlier today. I do hope you will understand
if I say that I never enter into correspondence with either party about an
adjudication once it is published.

Yours sincerely

Richard Ayre

show quoted sections

Thank you for your email. I do not operate a postal service for the Law Society, so you should feel free to write to Mr Brooks yourself.

Richard Ayre
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Poultney,

I do not intend to correspond with you further on this issue.

Richard Ayre

show quoted sections