Report #3: Lawcast with Andrew Hopper QC on the regulatory framework for solicitors and the work of the SRA

Posted: October 31, 2012 in Charon Tour, Reports

Photograph by Stephen Punter – an enthusiastic supporter of law (and my tour) who has given me permission to publish his remarkable black and white photographs in my tour reports. Website Stephen Punter Photography – he is also on twitter @stephenpunter

The regulation of lawyers in this country is vital to the maintenance of honest and best practice. Solicitors are represented by The Law Society and regulated by The Solicitors Regulation Authority. Barristers are represented by The Bar Council and regulated by The Bar Standards Board. I plan to deal with the regulation of barristers in a separate lawcast later in the tour; similarly Charted Legal Executives, the third principal branch of the profession. The regulators are regulated by The Legal Services Board and dissatisfied clients can take their claims to The Legal Ombudsman. The profession is heavily – but not necessarily – well or fairly regulated.

Today I talk with Andrew Hopper QC about the regulatory framework for solicitors, the Code of Practice, the strengths and shortcomings of the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the need for legal education to be improved with good training for prospective lawyers in ethics – the morals and not simply the rules.

Listen to the podcast
You may comment on the podcast by clicking in the speech bubble – top right hand side of the blog post.

Loads immediately in Chrome. Firefox takes a while to load the whole file before streaming. I will be opening a new iTunes account shortly to enable you to subscribe (free) in iTunes.


Andrew Hopper is a solicitor and Queen’s Counsel; still a rare combination. He was admitted a solicitor in 1972 and from 1988 has practised on his own account in a niche practice concerned with professional regulation and discipline, principally in relation to solicitors. He was appointed Silk in 2001, the fifth solicitor Silk to be appointed and the first outside the City of London. He is regarded by many as the foremost expert of his generation on the law and practice related to the regulation of solicitors.

  • He has written, with Gregory Treverton-Jones QC, the Solicitor’s Handbook 2008, 2009, 2011 and 2012, an intended annual publication proposed to be the natural successor to the Guide, but containing in one place all the professional rules to which solicitors are subject, as well as guidance about the regulatory system generally, written with the benefit of over thirty years experience of this area of law. With the same co-author he has written a guide to Outcomes-Focused Regulation as adopted by the Solicitors Regulation Authority in October 2011. Unlike the Guide however the Handbook is written from the perspective of the practitioner, rather than that of the regulator.
  • He is joint General Editor of Cordery on Legal Services, the principal authority on the law and practice affecting the regulation of the supply of legal services, including all aspects of the professional obligations and liabilities of solicitors and the other legal professions, and he is a consulting editor to the fifth edition of Halsbury’s Laws of England on the subject of solicitors
  • Website

Legal Futures covered this podcast with a good analysis: Hopper puts the case against “overly aggressive” SRA

  1. [...] consider whether the Code of Practice for solicitors is fit for the purpose – referencing a lawcast I did with Andrew Hopper QC on the regulatory framework – and we consider whether more emphasis should be placed on legal [...]

  2. [...] #3: Lawcast with Andrew Hopper QC on the regulatory framework for solicitors and the work of the SRA [...]

    • Raj says:

      I’ve just sent an email to Nottingham City Council, as follows:Dear Nottingham City CouncilIt has been peiotnd out that you are so averse to criticism that you have spent a33,500 in solicitor’s fees in an attempt to gag NCCLOL, a concerned member of the public who has peiotnd out some of your failings in his blog.This has brought his criticism of you and the District Auditor, Mrs Sue Sunderland, to a much wider audience than would otherwise have happened. You will be interested to know that people all over the country are now reading about the goings on of Nottingham City Council.He believes that NCC has covered up corruption and that the District Auditor has threatened him for pointing out that she should have dealt with this. Instead she (or you) has had a solicitor’s letter sent to him threatening him with action. (I’ve read an online scan ot it.) She seems to expecting NCC to fund some kind of court case, which is apparently not legal as she is not a member of the council. The person who has blown the whistle is being threatened by yourselves.It seems to me that the large majority of councillors of one party (Labour) may have given your council an overweening sense of its own importance, a sense of its own invincibilty. This is very, very unfortunate. You are, of course, only there to serve the people of Nottingham.Shame on youJudith Brooksbank

  3. [...] Report #3: Lawcast with Andrew Hopper QC on the regulatory framework for solicitors and the work of … [...]

  4. Legal Cheek says:

    [...] Lawcast with Andrew Hopper QC on the regulatory framework for solicitors and the work of the SRA [Charon QC] [...]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s