In Practice: Latest developments in the profession

This is the first of what is intended to be a regular series of posts dealing with some of the latest developments in the area of professional practice and regulation. As the logo above indicates, the posts will concentrate on the solicitors' side of the profession, although I may also occasionally cover the 'dark side' of the Bar.

First, a reminder that solicitors must activate their new mySRA accounts, as explained in a letter they should recently have received from the SRA. I tried to activate mine last week, only to be greeted by numerous irritating error messages that nearly caused me to throw my copy of the Code of Conduct through my monitor. A call to the SRA and I was told that they were having technical issues and that these should be resolved this week. I see that an apology also appears on their website.

Still on the subject of the SRA, a letter that appeared in the Gazette yesterday caught my eye. It was from Elizabeth Muirhead, on the subject of the requirement that by 6 October solicitors need to change the wording on all letterheads, websites and emails from ‘regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority’ to ‘authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority’. It doesn't seem like five minutes since this had to be changed previously. As Elizabeth says: "How many hours did this decision consume? How many hours will be spent making the amendment - and at what cost? How many hours will be consumed regulating those failing to comply?" Quite.

Lastly, I thought that reducing indemnity premiums always was a primary reason for getting Lexcel accreditation. Now, the Law Society and broker Hera Indemnity have done a deal to make it 'official', as reported by the Gazette yesterday. The deal also applies to members of the Conveyancing Quality Scheme. So, not all bad news...


  1. just as well, then, that solicitors have nothing better to do.
    like maybe earn a living ... or advise their clients ... or ring a barrister to ask what to do.

    (oops - sorry about that last one; i can't imagine what came over me)

  2. ...just so long as they don't pay the barrister.


  3. certainly, the ones that are unfortunate enough to instruct me don't make that kind of mistake!

  4. And they call themselves solicitors?

  5. on checking their notepaper, even those few firms reckless enough to settle my fee notes appear to lay claim to that precious title. needless to say, i think no worse of them than of the real solicitors who wouldn't dream of insulting me with filthy lucre.

    i assume that paying counsel is what that 'wasted costs' stuff is all about.

  6. Blimey, some firms actually pay you?

    What is the world coming to?


Post a comment

Thank you for taking the time to comment on this post. Constructive comments are always welcome, even if they do not coincide with my views! Please note, however, that comments will be removed or not published if I consider that:
* They are not relevant to the subject of this post; or
* They are (or are possibly) defamatory; or
* They breach court reporting rules; or
* They contain derogatory, abusive or threatening language; or
* They contain 'spam' advertisements (including links to any commercial websites).
Please also note that I am unable to give advice.