Court raises concerns about tools to deal with practitioners not complying with SLCC requests

The SLCC has renewed its call for a better solution to deal with solicitors unwilling or unable to comply with their regulatory duties.  

This follows a court hearing in which a solicitor was questioned on why they had not provided timely access to a file needed to investigate a complaint, despite numerous requests and reminders, and ultimately a court order. This is the second time this year that this individual solicitor has appeared before the court in relation to such a matter.  

Once more the Inner House stopped short of finding the solicitor in contempt of court, despite saying it was “a matter of very great concern that the court is once again having to consider whether [the solicitor] is in contempt of court. The troubling picture which emerges is of a practising solicitor who has consistently failed to respond properly to the regulator responsible for service complaints”. 

That call for a different approach was echoed by Lord Pentland, in the Chair, who said it was “absolutely extraordinary that the Inner House of the Court of Session should have to be involved in this matter” and “concerning that the tools we have at our disposal seem to be limited”.  

Commenting on the case, CEO Neil Stevenson said, “We appreciate the strong words from the court about the importance of complying with the SLCC’s requests and Lord Pentland’s comments that our approach to seeking and pursuing files is entirely appropriate. We are also pleased that the court awarded us expenses to mark its disapproval of the solicitor’s conduct.  

“However, none of this addresses the core issue which is the significant number of solicitors who fail to respond adequately to our requests for information, delaying the consideration of complaints, leaving their clients in limbo, and causing significant additional cost to the regulatory system paid for by their peers.  

“Nor does it deal adequately with the concerns about whether such a failure – and the evidence led in defence of these failures – raises questions about practitioners’ abilities to meet their professional duties. That has significant implications for public protection.  

“It will seem staggering to many that multiple clients’ complaints have been ignored, there have been multiple failures to respond to the SLCC, multiple failures to respond to court orders, tens of thousands of cost to the profession, and yet no regulatory action has been taken to protect the public. The current system is letting the public and the profession down.

“If the tools available to the court – and the SLCC – are not felt to be adequate to deal with this situation, then we believe the time is right for a discussion about the tools we need. We would welcome the court’s support in finding a better, less costly and more productive solution for dealing with this concerning matter.”