Solicitors Regulation Authority Recensioni 

No matter how strong your pieces of evidence are to instigate an investigation - the way they operate and decide what to investigate basically makes dishonest Solicitors and Law Firms bullet proof.

E.g. they won't investigate a matter that is not part of a wider pattern (since when do right and wrong depend on quantity? Oh, and no matter if the Annual Stats of the Legal Ombudsman contradict them).

If you query the rationale behind their decision, they will dodge your questions and provide a copy-paste answer that has nothing to do with what you asked.

Frustrating and part of the problem, rather than the problem solvers they claim to be, how many other 1 star reviews do they need before someone serious starts to investigate THEM?

Very poor service offered by the SRA. It is quite concerning. On the phone for 6 hours with someone telling me the same thing and the issue with my account was still not sorted out. I was told it would be fixed manually on the next day. Nothing was fixed. I drove from Cambridge to the Birmingham offices in a snow storm just to be told something else. I applied for a very simple SQE2 exemption and the response time could be up to 6 months?The service offering to users is non existent. However.....now that I have looked at SRA employee reviews I can understand why this is so....As an employer the SRA only achieved 3.6/5

worrying.
The head Paul Philp of the SRA gave an interview to City Am on the 3rd February 2023. Reading the shocking reviews ,yet to see any evidence of any change. The SRA needs to be accountable or disbanded forthwith . The bad rating on Trust Pilot speaks volumes

The SRA are absolutely useless and allow solicitors to act however they see fit. The legal Ombudsman are the same. They both support their fellow solicitors and when it boils down to the complaints they will say anything and change story’s and documents to suit them. Even when a judge has said on a court transcripts and it written in black-and-white that they are dishonest they say that’s not good enough because it only effects you and not the wider public. The fact that solicitors are protected by the SRA via Insurance policies and then give the SRA payouts to protect their integrity and to keep their good name says it all.
I believe there should be a reform and none solicitors who are specifically trained to deal with this. Fraud should be specially trained to govern them all. I mean they are Literally friends being governing by friends and the wider public are now standing together and saying enough.
The minimum wage is just over £10 an hour And we’ve got solicitors charging us £240 - 400 an hour and for what. To end up with a massive made up bill at the end that you weren’t expecting to get because you wasn’t correctly advised.

Please See this post and read it in full it’s shocking to know that there are solicitors that are in it together to gain and support one another and then they boast about it when someone is vulnerable.

Kerry Underwood
MCKENZIE FRIENDS: AN ABSURD DECISION
Image
kerryunderwood

In Ravenscroft v Canal and River Trust [2016] EWHC 2282 (Ch)

Chief Master Marsh gave guidance in relation to McKenzie Friends.

He stated that the starting point was to consider whether the applicant reasonably needed such assistance. If so the scope of that assistance should be determined and that required consideration of the applicant’s personal position, the context in which the application was made, the principles in the overriding objective and the guidance in Practice Notes: McKenzie Friends: Civil and Family Courts [2010] 1 WRL 1881.

Here the Master held that it was appropriate to appoint a McKenzie Friend and for him to have rights of advocacy, but that is “an exceptional course of action… only justified by exceptional circumstances”.

The Master said that the permission was not open-ended and could be withdrawn at any time if it was abused or if the McKenzie Friend sought to delay the conduct of the trial.

Here the claimant had difficulty in understanding written material, as well as the technical nature of the case and thus it was reasonable for him to call on assistance. The McKenzie Friend proposed to act free of charge and had already won a similar case when representing himself.

However the McKenzie Friend also had a number of unmet costs orders against him, including ones in favour of the defendant here.

Comment

An absurd decision that comes very close to saying that anyone who needs representation can choose anyone and does not need to have a lawyer.

This representative has ignored costs orders against him and thus can represent people in court but treat court orders that he does not like with impunity.

Such conduct by a solicitor would result in automatic suspension and subsequent striking off.

Here the Master was influenced by the fact that the McKenzie Friend had helped draft the proceedings etc. and that the claim “is in a reasonable shape” and that “my impression of Mr Moore from the three hearings when he has appeared in front of me is that he is capable of acting in a measured and helpful way.”

The logic of this is that if I illegally prescribe medication but it works, then having acted illegally, but reasonably successfully, as a non-qualified doctor, I should be allowed to conduct major surgery. If anyone may now appear as an advocate in a full High Court trial, which this case will be, where the Master accepted that it involved an issue of “real public importance” then what is the point of being a barrister or a solicitor?

Why train? Why qualify? Why insure? Why obey court orders? Why obey the law?

So anyone can now appear in court and ignore court orders as they want.

There will be hearingless Briggs courts. I suppose that stops the problem of McKenzie Friends.

This attitude will lead to the decline of the courts, the rule of law and everyone involved in it.

It is likely to lead to a shortage of lawyers seeking judicial appointments at the sharp end – that is as Deputy District Judges.

Why not just let the courts fall down as well? Saves a few bob.

Absolutely disgraceful the legal ombudsman issues a strike they do nothing

Lord Hope of Craighead - Judicial Fraudster is the title of my factual video that can be found on my you tube channel Where's Walshy In the video I have highlighted the criminal offences committed by the solicitors which the SRA refuse to sanction and in doing so are perverting the course of justice. Which is a stand alone offence that Paul Philip head of the SRA will be jailed for.

My heart goes out to the (close to) 250 reviewers that feel let down by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) – an organisation who are supposed to be protecting them. Of course, there will always be detractors on review sites, but not a single person has posted a review to say the SRA has helped them – and that would suggest something is seriously amiss.

Many of the reviews are from people whose lives have been devastated in dealings with rogue SRA regulated solicitors, and I can only imagine how awful it must have been to discover the SRA wouldn’t take action to help them. My story is far less dramatic but I did experience the same worrying lack of support from the SRA.

It began when I signed up to Which? Legal for advice with a tenancy matter and discovered they were providing me with incorrect information. I complained to Which? about this but they simply stated they ‘could have been clearer’ and refused to uphold my complaint. Deciding to pursue them, I was connected with the Head of Legal Operations at Which? Legal – who’s an SRA regulated solicitor. He clearly didn’t want to acknowledge that his legal service had messed up and so he used a gaslighting strategy, by continually downplaying their errors.

Given the Which? ethos is all about protecting consumers, I felt avoiding accountability in this way was appalling behaviour. Eventually, I stopped using their legal service and turned to the charity Shelter for advice, and this is where it became apparent just how badly Which? Legal had got things wrong. So, I decided to write to their Head of Legal Operations, asking why his solicitors hadn’t provided me with the correct advice – which I’d received from Shelter. I'm guessing he realised he'd been caught out but rather than apologise for the errors of his solicitors, he once again gaslighted me – claiming the advice I’d received from Which? Legal was the same as Shelter’s advice. I was well aware this wasn’t true, as I had recordings of all my calls with the Which? Legal solicitors.

Concerned that this SRA regulated solicitor – who’s the most senior member of management at Which? Legal – would be both gaslighting and lying to me, I contacted the SRA to ask if they may be able to help. They informed me this was exactly the sort of issue they can take action with and I was advised to file a report raising concerns about his professional conduct. After spending much time preparing and submitting a report, the SRA responded by telling me they couldn’t investigate, as there was no evidence this Which? Legal solicitor had been lying intentionally. The fact that they weren’t even willing to look into this or question him really surprised me and I rang and asked if I could speak to an SRA manager to discuss this.

Apparently, nobody was available when I rang but I was assured a manger would call me back. They didn't. I’ve now rung the SRA five times, each time being told a manger will return my call, but nobody's ever got back to me. On my most recent call to them, I spoke to a very nice adviser who seemed genuinely sympathetic that this was my fifth attempt to speak to a manger. He told me he would personally contact a manger asking them to call me, but, once again, I never heard from anyone. It seems likely these managers are dropping my messages in the bin.

I understand the SRA are funded by the solicitors they’re supposed to be regulating, so it’s perhaps unsurprising they’re not too keen to hold them to account. It also feels that the whole system is designed to frustrate people so they just give up – as so may Trustpilot reviewers seem to have done. The behaviour of the SRA is shocking and I personally feel it would be better to not have a regulator at all, if they behave in this way. Or, it may not be quite so bad if they were honest and admitted they weren’t interested in helping the public. At least then we'd know where we stand and wouldn’t raise our hopes of getting support that will never come.

UPDATE: Incredibly, within hours of posting this review, the SRA contacted Trustpilot and asked that I take down the names of their two members of staff I'd referred to (now removed). So, they spring into action on Trustpilot when it concerns their staff and yet don't even respond to the masses of Trustpilot reviews from the public, who raise concerns about them. This echoes the way they put their solicitor's interests ahead of ours.

While the SRA may occasionally take action to close down solicitor firms, it's clear they're not supporting the public in the way they should. This whole legal regulation process – which should be protecting us – is broken and it needs exposing in a way which will bring about change. I’m currently exploring options for doing this.

Solicitor kept sending threatening emails saying my late father owed them money, told them for 7 months we did not, only stopped when I found unsigned form saying only start billable work when this is signed. SRA said solicitor did nothing wrong. SRA are nothing more than a circling of the wagons operation for corrupt solicitors. Not fit for purpose.

Whitewashed a complaint about a solicitor working for a local council who was head to toe corrupt & clearly abused his position.

The SRA who supposed to monitor these people seek to close ranks the moment concerns about any solicitor is raised. They contiually side with the person at the centre of the allegations because in their eyes, the solicitor cannot be wrong.

Dont waste your time on these people, like the kangaroo courts they walk around in, they are just plain corrupt.

According to the SRA there has to be a pattern of dishonesty before considering a claim and the SRA say that “Brown Turner Ross” have no findings of integrity or dishonesty.
So If that is true why are their 2 company directors splashed all over news articles in 2018 and why is this not published by the SRA.
See legalfutures.co.uk
solicitor suspended for firms work for dodgy trust business

Tried to complain about a corrupt legal firm representing a clearly mentally ill stalker who's been harassing me, my father, my friends and more for over two years now. Clearly breaking the law, clearly using false identities, admitted he used a civil case against me as 'legal leverage' to scare me into dropping my police report. Everything, thousands of pages of evidence, videos of the man, threats of violence, every damn thing. I've had PTSD/panic attacks so long and they get triggered each time some SRA person comes back and tells me there's no evidence of any wrongdoing. The last person this dodgy firm's client went after lost his LIFE. How much more do they need? He says I'm 'next' on his agenda, he's splashed 600k on legal fees via them to harass me, he's got at least 6 more years in him I bet. I just want to live a life without this, it's destroyed everything, surely the SRA would see that this firm is exploiting a deranged, criminally insane man. It's unethical, he needs to be in a loony bin, not on the phone splashing hundreds of quid a time to a lawyer indulging his dark fantasies about wanting me to suffer for the rest of my life. It's sick. These people are sick. If I ever get the chance, I'm naming them personally. I'm so, so lucky I'm not dead. The only reason I'm still here is God and God alone, not the police, not the SRA, just God. Thank God I'm alive. If you could even call this a life. Disgusting.

Utter joke, failed to investigate the complaint, ignored documentary evidence as well as the solicitor's admission we were his client, and that the solicitor also advised the Courts we were their client, and it took 6 years of wasted time and effort, a total JOKE of an alleged "regulator". When i complained i was simply fobbed off. As crooked as the Solicitors they claim to "regulate". 40 pages of documentary evidence and the Solicitor admitted we was their client and we paid their bill, But despite this, the SRA claim we were not their client, so WHAT did they charge us for and what did we pay for ?????

Updated March 2023 - My complaint about the SRA service has been "investigated" but my complaint about the investigation of my previous solicitors Lester Aldridge LLP and the outcome (where they all were let off Scott Free) cannot be investigated again or looked into where there was no outcome for me to actually appeal. So I hit a wall complaining about their investigation. I was told however that my investigation took a long time (14 months) and I wasn't kept in the loop enough and was offered £75 compensation! So now I have had to raise another compliant about the original investigation separately. I raised a complaint about the SAR and the information they have shared (see below 5 piece Word Doc pieced together) and have again been told that they have sent me all they are legally obliged to. They are an absolute waste of time this joke of an authority. How it's being run the way it is, is beyond me. Protects the solicitors causing us all harm. The CEO Paul Philip should resign and the whole place needs investigating itself. I hope one day to read in the news that the place is being torn apart and investigated itself.

Updated Dec 23rd 2022 - Having put in a Subject Access Request to the SRA and waiting over a month for them to acknowledge my request at all, and respond, I have been sent a 5 page word document which has been patched together by the Compliance Team and Information Governance Officer Jack Baraczewski with some random notes that the Investigation Officers have taken in the last 14 months. They are pieced together in a new document, they are not original copies of notes, they are not dated or signed off, and I was not sent all of the information and data that the SRA hold on me and my complaint about the firm who failed me (Lester Aldridge LLP) in my Clinical Negligence Claim from 2018-2021. The document they have sent me is as incomplete and pointless as their whole investigation appears to have been and is testament to what a poor service this authority give to the public (us). I would suggest that anyone else who has a complaint about the SRA, as I do, and is suspicious of how they have handled your data and investigations/complaints about corrupt negligent solicitors, also put in their own Subject Access Requests as an attempt to finding out how their data and investigations were actually handled. You really couldn't make all this up at what a poor service this authority gives to us the public.

I have also put in a complaint to the Legal Services Board who oversee the SRA. Though I won't be holding my breath with them either, I expect they are all as bad as each other.

I add to the continuous stream of poor reviews about this "authority' who are funded by the very people they are meant to be regulating, so it is biased. I have waited 14 months for them while they investigated my solicitor who failed to protect my position for my clinical negligence claim against my GP. He was dismissed from the firm he worked for for his handling of mine and others claims and they reported him *themselves* to the SRA for concerns over another 16 or so claims they felt he had not met standards with. The SRA have spent 14 months investigating him and his 17 claims including mine and have said that as he has no record of previous issues and they dont consider his actions to be misconduct they'll be taking it no further. They didnt refer it over to the Legal Ombudsman when they started to realise all this (although I believe it is misconduct when it's 17 claims). Even my Professional Negligence solicitor cant quite believe it. Because of their long investigation which I was told I would have an update for in January 2022 I now cant go to the equally rubbish Legal Ombudsman and take my complaint there to try and get some compensation for what I lost out on due to his incompetence. So professional negligence is only way to seek some justice. My GP got away with breach of duty, my solicitor has so far got away with breach of duty. It is quite unbelievable that this solicitor funded corrupt authority is continually allowed to protect solicitors and let the rest of us down whilst paying their unqualified investigators salaries. Like everyone else has said its a shambles and it's about time we all stood up to them and made the government "investigate" them. Imagine if their office, files, cases, staff, were all investigated? I imagine that would be a can of worms the media and competent legal teams would be interested in. Where is Esther Rantzen when you need her?

Absolute shambles. A genuine evidenced serious complaint about a Solicitor just swept under the carpet. Waited months for them to act and then get a letter saying, no can do. Why and how do this organisation survive, so many negative reviews!

The SRA are not fit for purpose. Bear in mind that nearly all the SRA investigators are not legally qualified as you will find out by asking them for details of their legal qualifications which they will then refuse to provide claiming it is personal data. I previously made a complaint to the SRA about a senior solicitor who worked for a government department and who found that solicitor to have lied and that government department gave me an unserved written apology for that conduct which they recognised had caused me significant upset and distress. However on providing that written evidence to the SRA they stated there was no evidence of any professional misconduct on the part of that solicitor. I then complained to the then Legal Services Ombudsman about the SRA who twice sent the complaint back to the SRA to reinvestigate and both times the SRA repeated in a parrot like fashion that there was no evidence that the solicitor had done anything wrong. The Legal Services Ombudsman refused to refer it back to the SRA for a third time as she stated there was no point as she could only make recommendations and that the SRA were clearly not going to listen to her. That solicitor now sits as a Legally Qualified Chair on various police misconduct tribunals despite having been found by his now previous employers to have been thoroughly dishonest

I cannot believe I have waited 4 months to be told there is nothing dishonest about collusion between a solicitor and his client. They could have easily intervened. They think it is perfectly normal for a solicitor to pretend he has contacted a listed witness, throughout a court case, written that there has been confirmed contact with said witness and put his name on court documents without his knowledge or consent. Well, that is quite acceptable according to the SRA. Do they not think this is suspicious in itself? Not dishonest at all! Unless you have forensic evidence, they basically, don't give a f***. So, don't bother wasting your time writing and expecting them to do the right thing. They don't even make any phone calls to question the solicitor. Pathetic. Now I have to relay this to my daughter, who was at the brink of ending her life because this solicitor put her through hell during her self litigation! Nobody cares. I will now be going to my MP with this. Disgusting!

One thing you may be able to use to your advantage is if they potentially breach your human rights during any of your claim with them. Article 3, 10 especially. I believe you have a year to bring it to court.

They are considered a public authority where human rights are concerned.

Unfortunately my experience of the SRA mirrors all the others on here. It is hard to believe how anyone with a shred of self respect would continue working for this organisation. It is slow, incompetent and blatantly biased. It seems to work entirely on the premise that  'investigating a complaint' means firstly, ignoring that complaint as long as possible (months in my case in spite of stated time frames and reminders, perhaps in the hopes it will go away!). Secondly,when you do get your complaint considered, they simply ask the firm/individual who is the subject of the complaint for their version - and then present you with that version as if it were the gospel truth and automatically right. There is absolutely no independent questioning, investigation or consideration of evidence, or facts by the SRA themselves. They simply quote what the subject of your complaint has said as the final word on the matter.
In my own case, I listed and provided detailed instances and recorded evidence of contravention , by Graham Hughes of Brabners plc (much of which consisted of Mr Hughes's own written submissions), of several principles and guidelines outlined by the SRA on their own website. I was however told - without any independent investigation, analysis, justification or explanation whatsoever by the SRA and purely on the basis of denials by Mr Hughes  - that the SRA considered that 'there were no grounds for complaint'.
Even though I had been warned about the SRA, I was still shocked by their blatant disregard for the truth and standards in the legal profession. One of their stated principles involves maintaining public confidence in the legal profession, but mine has now reached rock bottom. I am sure this is the case with many others. Unscrupulous individuals and firms can act with impunity it seems and unless you have a lot of money to pay another solicitor there is no way of holding them to account.
I do firmly believe however that it's important to keep complaining to the SRA when we have negative experiences at the hands of some in the legal profession...and then to keep putting honest reviews here of how the SRA handles those complaints. Both to encourage others in a similar position but also because it is amounting now to a serious indictment, and body of evidence, of the shocking failure of the SRA. This is one way of holding them to account.

Don't be put off by SRA corruption. Refer any solicitor dishonesty claims to the Solicitors Indemnity Fund. If you read their Rules carefully SIF(2012) Rule 8.5, available on line, you will find that the indemnity includes dishonesty in some cases. See particularly Rule 9.3. Ask your solicitor for advice. Chances are he will not want to! Asking the President of the Law Society to appoint an arbitrator is a conflict of interest and the corruption extends to her as well. What hope do us lowly consumers have?

Unfortunately, this is one more negative review of the SRA that demonstrates what a complete waste of time and public resources it is. It seems that all these professional regulators do, is to cover for those they are meant to regulate which is against the public interest and undermines the justice system.

Ms Melanie Isherwood of Weightmans defended the NHS in court proceedings but deliberately manipulated court directions and Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) to obtain advantage and prevent a fair process from taking place. By adopting a creative litigation strategy and developing an array of procedural tactics plagued by misconduct and fraud, Ms Isherwood ensured due process did not happen. Ms Isherwood’s dishonesty and misconduct made it impossible for there to be a fair trial.
When evidence of this was submitted to the SRA to investigate in the public interest they refused to investigate... the SRA is not interested in allegations of fraud because it defends the fraudsters.

Melanie Isherwood has escaped prison and Weightmans has had their multi million pound contracts with the Government renewed.

You won’t get anywhere,a complete shame, don’t even bother going to the Legal Ombudsman. It’s best described as the “ old boys network” just looking after their own!