SRA investigated/risk assessed solicitors

Jane May made this Freedom of Information request to Solicitors Regulation Authority

This request has been closed to new correspondence. Contact us if you think it should be reopened.

The request was successful.

Dear Solicitors Regulation Authority,

Since 2003, How many solicitors have been reported to the SRA from the following:-

Army Legal Services,
RAF Legal Services,
Navy Legal Services,

For each law firm, and each allegation, please provide the category the report falls into, ie investigated, risk assessed etc.

Please provide a redacted copy of all risk assessments and investigations for Army, RAF & Navy Legal Services.

Yours faithfully,

Jane May

Joao Curro,

Dear Ms May

 

Freedom of Information Request – Our Ref: FOI/BS/1135

 

Thank you for your email today to the Solicitors Regulation Authority
(“SRA”) requesting information. I am treating this as an information
request under the Law Society Freedom of Information Code of Practice
("the Code").

 

You have requested access to the following information:

 

 

“Since 2003, How many solicitors have been reported to the SRA from the
following:-

 

Army Legal Services,

RAF Legal Services,

Navy Legal Services,

 

For each law firm, and each allegation, please provide the category the
report falls into, ie investigated, risk assessed etc.

 

Please provide a redacted copy of all risk assessments  and investigations
for Army, RAF & Navy Legal Services.”

 

 

The SRA is a part of the Law Society but acts independently in 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...

 

The Code applies to all information held by the Society, including the
SRA, and the Information Compliance Team deals with all requests received
under the Code. We will not share information relating to your request
across the Law Society Group.

 

I am currently dealing with your request. Bob Stanley, Information
Compliance Manager will aim to respond formally by 30 December 2013 which
is 20 working days from the receipt of your request.

 

Your 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.

Stay up to date by registering for the Society’s e-newsletters at
[3]www.lawsociety.org.uk/newsandevents/newsletters.law

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...
3. http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/newsandeven...

Joao Curro,

This message has been hidden. Removed from public view as personal information which we consider it would be unfair to publish was contained in the response. The substance of the response stated: "Since 2003 there have only been 2 allegations and these were both against Army Legal Services". In addition the existence of two "conduct" matters and a "policy" matter were noted. A risk assessment profile document was attached relating to two allegations. These were ineffectually redacted with the name of the solicitors the allegations were made against redacted, but other identifying material remaining unredacted. The description of one allegation included: "the subject solicitor acted dishonestly in that he failed to provide a Judge at a recent hearing of[sic] evidence he was in possession of". The Risk Assessment score in relation to that was "5" with a RAG rating "GREEN". The other allegation, accompanied by a note: "Inf without interest - official capacity" was described as "making improper allegations of corruption involving the Court". This case was given an Overall Risk Score of 11.52 and and Overall Risk Band of Low. Please contact us if you have any questions. If you are the requester, then you may sign in to view the message.

Dear Joao Curro,

Could you please provide more details of the following:-

[personal data]                    Policy               [personal data] 2013

[personal data]                     Conduct            [personal data] 2013

It appears only page 1 & 4 are visible from the RAP.

Could you please provide any guide or scheme that would indicate what the codes within the RAP signify.

Yours sincerely,

Jane May

Joao Curro,

2 Attachments

Dear Ms May

 

Freedom of Information Request – Our Ref: FOI/BS/1135

 

Thank you for your email.

 

The reason why pages 2 and 3 are missing is because when the form was
printed out from our system, these pages were blank and therefore they
were not scanned as part of the final disclosure. The entire contents of
the form have been fully disclosed.

 

With regards to the Codes used in the RAP forms, please refer to the
attached Event Classification and Impact Scores documents attached. More
information can be found in the SRA website
[1]http://www.sra.org.uk/sra/strategy/risk....

 

I hope this information is of use.

 

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

Stuart Hardwicke CARRUTHERS left an annotation ()

In the event table it identifies that the score for misleading the court is 10...in the risk assessment table this is identified as being 5.0.. and a total category score of 11.52 assigned.. The scoring by the SRA does not make sense