Written by In the history of legal regulation, few partnerships have been as enduring—or as troubling—as the one between Capsticks Solicitors LLP and the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA). Capsticks, long a trusted legal partner for public bodies like the NHS and the SRA, has been embroiled in controversies ranging from obstructive tribunal tactics to internal misconduct. Despite this, the SRA has consistently renewed its relationship with Capsticks, most recently extending its exclusive contract in 2023.
Against the backdrop of the SRA’s own failings—exemplified by its botched handling of the Axiom Ince debacle—the regulator’s continued reliance on Capsticks reveals a damning lack of accountability. Far from addressing systemic issues, this unholy alliance perpetuates a culture of opacity, obstruction, and institutional self-preservation.
Capsticks: From 2019 Scandal to Tribunal Tactics
Capsticks’ reputation first came under fire in 2019, when the firm dismissed a partner for “inappropriate conduct.” While the swift action seemed to reflect decisiveness, the lack of transparency—the nature of the misconduct and the partner’s identity were never disclosed—exposed a reluctance to engage openly with the public.
This episode should have been a wake-up call for the firm. Instead, Capsticks has continued to operate with a level of impunity that undermines the legal system. Recent cases, such as Clive Rennie v NHS Norfolk and Waveney Integrated Care Board, highlight the firm’s troubling reliance on obstructive litigation tactics, including:
- Withholding Evidence: Denying the existence of critical documents, only for their existence to be revealed later.
- Strategic Delays: Submitting documents at the eleventh hour, forcing claimants into a scramble to prepare.
- Suppression of Exhibits: Omitting key pieces of evidence from bundles, creating additional burdens for claimants to rectify procedural failures.
Such tactics, far from being isolated incidents, reveal a culture that prioritises winning at all costs—regardless of the toll on claimants or the integrity of the tribunal process.
The SRA: A Regulator in Disarray
The SRA’s continued reliance on Capsticks is emblematic of its own systemic dysfunction. As the exclusive provider of the SRA’s disciplinary and litigation services, Capsticks wields significant influence in shaping regulatory outcomes. Yet the SRA has shown little willingness to hold its legal partner to account, even as allegations of misconduct mount.
The SRA’s recent actions in the Axiom Ince bankruptcy case exemplify its broader failings. The regulator, seeking to recover costs from its intervention, applied to be added as a creditor in former Axiom Ince boss Pragnesh Modhwadia’s bankruptcy. This audacious move, coming after the SRA’s negligence allowed Axiom Ince’s issues to fester, underscores a regulator more focused on salvaging its finances than addressing its own culpability.
Master Clark’s scepticism during the bankruptcy proceedings was well-founded. The SRA’s claim that the trustee “will not be interested” in its participation betrayed a cavalier disregard for due process, while its insistence on avoiding full party status revealed a strategy aimed at bypassing accountability.
Much like Capsticks, the SRA appears more interested in damage control than meaningful reform.
An Alliance Built on Self-Preservation
The relationship between Capsticks and the SRA is one of mutual reinforcement: Capsticks shields public bodies from scrutiny with aggressive litigation tactics, while the SRA provides the firm with a steady stream of work and tacit approval of its methods.
The consequences of this alliance are profound. For claimants, it means facing a tribunal process rigged in favour of institutional defendants. For the public, it means watching a regulator charged with protecting the profession instead entrenching a culture of impunity.
The SRA’s renewal of Capsticks’ exclusive contract in 2023, despite the firm’s tarnished reputation, underscores a regulator unwilling to confront its own failings.
Lessons Unlearned
The parallels between Capsticks’ 2019 scandal, its recent tribunal controversies, and the SRA’s handling of Axiom Ince are striking. In each case, the underlying issues—opacity, procedural obstruction, and an aversion to accountability—remain unaddressed.
This failure to learn from past mistakes has eroded public confidence in both Capsticks and the SRA. For Capsticks, it reflects a culture of institutional self-preservation. For the SRA, it raises existential questions about its fitness to regulate the profession.
The Need for Reform
If the SRA and Capsticks wish to salvage their reputations, they must embrace radical transparency and accountability:
For Capsticks:
- Commit to ethical litigation practices that prioritise fairness over obstruction.
- Address internal cultural issues that have allowed misconduct to persist.
For the SRA:
- Conduct an independent review of Capsticks’ performance as its exclusive legal partner.
- Reform its risk management framework to prevent future failures like Axiom Ince.
- Focus on protecting stakeholders, not its own financial interests.
Conclusion
The story of Capsticks and the SRA is one of unlearned lessons and unaccountable power. Together, they have fostered a culture that prioritises institutional interests over justice, eroding public trust in the process.
For Capsticks, the 2019 dismissal of a partner for “inappropriate conduct” should have been a turning point. Instead, it has become a symbol of a firm unwilling to change. For the SRA, the Axiom Ince debacle highlights a regulator more focused on self-preservation than its mandate.
Without immediate and decisive reform, both organisations risk further undermining the principles of fairness and transparency that underpin the legal profession. The public deserves better, and it is long past time for Capsticks and the SRA to deliver.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of any organisations or entities mentioned. This piece is for informational and critical commentary purposes only and is not intended as legal or professional advice.