Dear Solicitors Regulation Authority,
Having dealt personally with you, it is abundantly clear to me that your organisation is fundamentally unfit for purpose. You claim to regulate the legal profession, uphold justice, and protect the public, yet you operate more like an incompetent sheriff in a chaotic Wild West town—drunk, incapable, and indifferent to the disorder surrounding you. My grievances, despite being backed by credible evidence of solicitor misconduct, were brushed aside, and I have since learned that I am far from alone in experiencing this dismissive and disgraceful treatment.
This letter follows my previous critiques, such as ‘The SRA and Trustpilot: A Troubling View of Legal Regulation‘ and ‘Enforcement Action Against the Solicitors Regulation Authority: Lessons from the Axiom Ince Review‘. Time and again, you have demonstrated an unwillingness or inability to fulfil your role effectively. The Axiom Ince scandal is merely the latest in a long, shameful list of regulatory failures that make a mockery of your claimed mission to safeguard justice.
1. Reactive Regulatory Framework and the Axiom Ince Crisis
The collapse of Axiom Ince is symptomatic of the dangers of your reactive stance. Despite multiple warnings and unambiguous evidence of regulatory breaches, you failed to intervene until the firm’s collapse became inevitable. This negligence resulted in substantial financial losses and ruined countless careers. Your response, as concluded by the Legal Services Board (LSB), was neither adequate, effective, nor efficient. The Axiom Ince fiasco stands as a testament to your lethargy and dereliction of duty. It was not simply a mistake; it was a blatant dereliction of the responsibility entrusted to you by the public.
2. Conflicts of Interest and Questionable Regulatory Independence
The impartiality of your investigations is fundamentally compromised by the career trajectories of your investigators, many of whom originate from or aspire to roles within the very firms they are supposed to regulate. This “revolving door” dynamic fosters an environment rife with regulatory capture, undermining any semblance of independence. Moreover, your funding—reliant on practising certificate fees and penalties levied on firms—creates an egregious conflict of interest. It is naïve, if not outright dishonest, to suggest that you can regulate without undue influence when your financial survival depends on those you are meant to oversee.
3. Opaque Practices and Concerns of Undue Influence
Your lack of transparency is staggering. The public has a right to know whether your decisions are influenced by affiliations, such as Freemasonry, that might skew the impartiality expected of a regulator. While membership in such organisations is not inherently improper, your secrecy fuels mistrust and perpetuates the perception of conflicts of interest. In an age when transparency is demanded in all facets of governance, your refusal to establish clear policies around disclosure is nothing short of contemptuous.
4. Inconsistent Enforcement of the SRA Code of Conduct
Your reluctance to acknowledge and rectify regulatory failings is a betrayal of the very principles you are supposed to uphold. Your inconsistent enforcement of the Code of Conduct has allowed flagrant breaches to go unpunished, eroding public confidence in the legal profession. It is not enough to occasionally hold individuals accountable; regulation must be consistent and rigorous. Your efforts to justify these repeated failures have been both hollow and offensive, further eroding any remaining credibility.
5. Inadequate Anti-Money Laundering (AML) Oversight
Your track record on AML enforcement is, frankly, pathetic. The VKM Solicitors case—where the firm received a pitiful £4,932 fine for over a decade of AML failings is not merely inadequate—it is a signal to wrongdoers that they have nothing to fear from you. Such leniency invites malpractice and places the entire profession at risk of facilitating criminal enterprise. You have not just failed to act; you have effectively given a green light to those willing to exploit systemic weaknesses.
6. Allegations of Corruption and Favouritism
Allegations of favouritism and bribery within your ranks are immensely damaging to public trust. These claims—whether substantiated or not—deserve immediate, transparent, and thorough investigation. Your unwillingness to address these concerns head-on speaks volumes about the culture of evasion that seems to define your operations. Until you actively root out corruption within your own ranks, your pretence of regulating with integrity is laughable.
7. Questionable Independence in Dispute Resolution Processes
Your reliance on the Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution (CEDR) for reviews reeks of a lack of accountability. Entrusting key elements of the regulatory process to external bodies without imposing stringent oversight does not absolve you of responsibility; it compounds your failure to ensure impartiality. This approach suggests either an inability or a wilful refusal to maintain the standards of independence and neutrality that the public expects from you.
8. Negative Public Perception and the Erosion of Trust
The public has spoken, and their reviews of your work are damning. Platforms like Trustpilot are awash with negative feedback, portraying you as an organisation bereft of both efficacy and integrity. Whether or not these perceptions are justified in every instance is irrelevant—the sheer volume of criticism cannot be dismissed. You have, time and again, proven yourself unworthy of the trust placed in you, and it is no wonder the public has grown weary of your empty promises and consistent failures.
A Call for Immediate Structural Reform
The time for superficial reflection has long passed. You must now undertake immediate and substantive action to restore your credibility as the supposed steward of legal ethics. I demand the following measures:
- Revise the Funding Structure: Reform your funding model to eliminate financial dependencies that compromise regulatory impartiality. If your funding is tied to those you are supposed to regulate, your claims of independence are nothing but a sham.
- Address Conflicts of Interest: Implement stringent policies to prevent conflicts of interest among investigators and regulatory staff. End the revolving door that makes impartial regulation impossible.
- Enhance Transparency: Full transparency is non-negotiable. The public deserves to know who influences your decisions and whether conflicts of interest are at play.
- Enforce the Code of Conduct Uniformly: No more selective enforcement. Apply the Code of Conduct consistently, ensuring that every legal professional, no matter how powerful, is held to the same high standards.
- Strengthen AML Enforcement: Step up AML enforcement or step aside. Your lax approach endangers not just the legal profession but the public at large.
- Investigate Allegations of Corruption: Conduct comprehensive and transparent investigations into claims of favouritism and corruption. Your credibility depends on it.
- Reassess External Partnerships: Reevaluate all partnerships with external bodies to safeguard independence. Ensure that those entrusted with regulatory responsibilities are beyond reproach.
- Engage with Public Concerns: You are not above accountability. Actively engage with public feedback, address legitimate grievances, and make tangible improvements in your regulatory role.
The legal profession is supposed to be a cornerstone of justice and democratic governance. Your repeated and flagrant failures jeopardise not only the integrity of this profession but also public confidence in the rule of law itself. The urgent need for sweeping reforms cannot be overstated. If you cannot or will not meet your obligations, then you should step aside in favour of a body that can.
The time for change is now. You must either reform or be dismantled. We cannot allow an ineffective, indifferent body to continue masquerading as the guardian of public trust. Your failures have had tangible, devastating consequences—lives have been upended, finances shattered, and trust betrayed. Enough is enough. The public deserves a regulator that actually regulates, not one that hides behind bureaucracy while those you are meant to protect suffer.
Yours sincerely,
John Barwell
The SRA investigated the misappropriation of funds by my conveyancer who did not follow their own terms and conditions , apply anti money laundering regulations or due diligence with a clients funds nor did my conveyancer once aware of the misappropriation report the matter to me and how they would put matters right, I had to instruct another solicitor who also failed to follow instructions and my conveyancers indemnity insurers solicitors have made many false statements and dishonest settlement agreements. UK Law is broken and needs to be fully renewed with compensation for clients who receive substandard legal treatment agreed before instruction helping legal practices focus on providing services expected by clients