Written by The Solicitors Regulation Authority finds itself embroiled in yet another crisis of confidence. This time, it is not just the regulated profession or external critics raising concerns but a former insider. Tony Williams, a former non-executive director of the SRA and a respected figure in the legal world, has publicly called for the resignation of SRA chair Anna Bradley and chief executive Paul Philip following the Axiom Ince debacle.
Williams’ criticism, outlined in The Times and reported in The Law Gazette (28 November 2024), underscores the gravity of the situation. His remarks are not merely a reaction to procedural failings but a call for systemic accountability at the very top of the regulatory body.
Axiom Ince: A Symptom of a Larger Problem
The Axiom Ince affair is emblematic of deeper, systemic issues within the SRA. As Williams points out, the firm was flagged as medium risk despite glaring red flags, including the centralisation of critical compliance roles in a single individual who was also the firm’s beneficial owner.
This misstep raises a critical question: how could an organisation tasked with protecting the public interest and ensuring compliance with anti-money laundering (AML) regulations fail to act on such an obvious risk?
Williams’ observations echo the concerns of many within the profession. The SRA holds solicitors to exceptionally high standards, yet it appears unwilling—or unable—to apply these same principles to its own leadership.
A Culture of Denial
Williams’ criticism goes beyond operational failings, highlighting a culture of denial within the SRA. He notes a lack of humility in the regulator’s response to the Legal Services Board’s independent report on the Axiom Ince matter. Instead of acknowledging its failings and committing to substantive change, the SRA’s leadership appears to have adopted a stance of grudging acceptance, offering little more than token commitments to do better.
This attitude is particularly troubling in light of the decision to extend Bradley’s tenure as chair. While ostensibly justified by “recent developments” and “shifting risks in the legal sector,” this move reeks of institutional inertia—a reluctance to embrace meaningful reform.
Leadership Accountability: A Non-Negotiable Standard
Williams’ call for resignations is both timely and necessary. Leadership accountability is a cornerstone of effective regulation. Without it, the credibility of the entire regulatory framework is undermined.
The argument that Bradley and Philip should step down is compelling. Their tenure has been marked by repeated failings, including a lack of transparency, inconsistent enforcement of standards, and an inability to address systemic risks effectively. If they will not take responsibility for these shortcomings, then the non-executive directors on the SRA board must act decisively by resigning in protest.
Such a step would send a powerful message: that the SRA is not above the standards it imposes on others. It would also pave the way for the necessary cultural and structural changes that the organisation so desperately needs.
A Path Forward
The resignation of senior leadership, while necessary, is only the first step. To rebuild trust and ensure effective regulation, the SRA must undergo a fundamental transformation.
- Independent Oversight: Establish a truly independent body to oversee the SRA’s operations and decision-making processes. This would help restore public confidence and ensure accountability.
- Proactive Risk Management: Develop a robust risk assessment framework that prioritises early intervention and ongoing monitoring, particularly in high-risk cases.
- Transparent Decision-Making: Commit to full transparency in its decision-making processes, with clear explanations for enforcement actions—or lack thereof.
- Cultural Change: Address the insular and defensive culture within the organisation. This requires new leadership, fresh perspectives, and a genuine commitment to the public interest.
Conclusion
The Axiom Ince affair has laid bare the failings of the SRA under its current leadership. Tony Williams’ call for resignations is not just a critique of individual failings but a challenge to the broader culture of regulatory complacency.
The time for half-measures and hollow promises is over. If the SRA cannot hold its own leaders accountable, how can it expect to regulate a profession that plays such a critical role in combating economic crime and upholding the rule of law?
For the SRA to move forward, it must embrace the accountability and transparency it demands of others. Anything less would be a betrayal of the public trust.
Acknowledgement: This article draws on reporting from The Law Gazette (28 November 2024) and The Times.
Disclaimer: The views expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of any organisations with which I am affiliated.