Decision not to ban inducements is demeaning to the profession

The SRA has taken the extraordinary decision not to ban firms from offering inducements to potential clients, even though the MoJ has banned claims management companies (CMCs) from doing so. It is now widely known in the legal profession as the 'SFA', the initials crudely reflecting what it has '“ or rather hasn't '“ done about breaches of the referral fee ban.

The regulator said there was ?no evidence that incentives encourage spurious claims. Actually, Mr Regulator, that is none of your business. You are there to regulate solicitors, not their clients. There is a clue in the name Solicitors Regulation Authority.

A spokesperson for the alternative regulatory body ?'“ the Authority for Regulating Solicitors, or ARS '“ said there ?was no evidence that solicitors stealing client account money, robbing banks or supplying drugs to prisoners encouraged spurious claims, and that, in the spirit of free enterprise, these activities should be allowed, if not positively encouraged. ?'Too many old-fashioned Neanderthals see law as a profession, a calling, a vocation even, rather than an opportunity to cheat and steal and bribe,' they said.

ARS also supported the SRA's policy of allowing solicitors and CMCs to break the referral fee ban: 'What does this parliament thing think it is? I mean, what gives it the right to make rules? It's like drugs. There's good money in selling drugs. They will be banning them next.'

It was pointed out that some CMCs were charging clients to refer them to a solicitor, who then paid the referral fee out ?of the client's damages, which appeared to constitute the criminal offences of obtaining ?a pecuniary advantage by deception, fraud and conspiracy to defraud, the latter carrying a sentence of life imprisonment.

ARS said: 'That's like Al Capone being done for tax. We can't get lawyers for breaking five sections of an act of parliament, so get them for fraud. It's pathetic, all this 'battle against fraud' talk. Who stands up for fraud, that's what I want to know? Fraud has rights too.'

Meanwhile, the privatised prison service, Crims R Us, welcomed the influx of solicitors to prison: 'We have a lot of 'geographically restricted customers' '“ we don't use the term 'prisoners' '“ here who have passed the LPC but can't get a training contract. Their convictions for bribery, theft and fraud and their complete contempt of parliament and society means that they will be ideal solicitors. Sewing mailbags is really a thing of the past, emails have seen to that.'

An SRA spokesperson responded: 'There is no evidence that solicitors being required to have convictions for fraud encourages spurious claims. ?We need an inclusive, diverse profession, and cheating, law-breaking crooks are part of that inclusive society. We can't have parliament going about passing laws.'

ARS said: 'Too few solicitors see client account as the business opportunity that it undoubtedly is.'

The SRA spokesperson said: 'There is no evidence that encouraging spurious claims encourages spurious claims.' SJ