Professor John condemns 'illiterate rantings' of SRA diversity critics

Professor Gus John, whose 248-page report into the regulation of BME solicitors was published last month, has hit back at criticism from minority lawyers' groups, which he referred to as "illiterate rantings".

The professor's report cleared the SRA of discrimination, but found that its approach to regulation before OFR had a disproportionate impact on BME firms.

However, the External (Equality) Implementation Group (EIG), set up to help the SRA improve its approach to diversity, criticised the professor for his failure to "draw any inference of institutional racism".

The EIG, which includes members of the Society of Black Lawyers and Society of Asian Lawyers, said Professor John's "costly report" had "promised much but has delivered very little of value for the profession".

The group said: "The SRA has shown a cavalier disregard for the rights of both BME lawyers and our wider communities. This is in direct contrast to the overwhelmingly white, middle class city firms enjoying almost complete immunity from such enquiries, investigations and disciplinary sanctions."

In a lengthy defence of his position, Professor John said he had met with members of the EIG and provided them with regular updates throughout the course of the review.

"Members of the EIG could have written to me, collectively or individually, to share their reactions to or concerns about my report. They all chose not to do so. The press release was not sent to me, nor was it cleared with or sent to Lord Ouseley who chairs the group.

"The kindest thing that can be said about the illiterate rantings of the EIG in that press release is that they did not bother to read the report before framing their response.

"The conclusions and recommendations in my report are based upon the evidence the review gathered and analysed, including from solicitors who had been regulated, senior regulatory lawyers who advocate on behalf of respondents, regulatory lawyers acting for the SRA and solicitors who had not faced regulation.

"The EIG's assessment of my report is such a caricature of the presentation of that evidence and the findings derived from it as to be a complete travesty."

Peter Herbert, chairman of the Society of Black Lawyers (SBL) criticised the SRA's approach to the report in 2012, and demanded that it consider a wider range of cases.

Professor John added: "If the SBL or any other organisation claims the moral high ground, the institutions they seek to hold to account no less than those black practitioners whose interests they seek to defend have a right to expect them to act with integrity and with a concern for justice.

"There are anti-racist combatants who are locked in a victim mould and believe that the end justifies whatever means suit their purpose."