SRA to decide on delayed discrimination review

The SRA’s board is to decide by early next week whether to approve new terms of reference for a review into whether it discriminates against minority lawyers.

The review, by Professor Gus John, was due to report back this autumn. However, it will not now report until January at the earliest after minority lawyers complained about the small sample of cases originally suggested.

Mehrunissa Lalani, head of inclusion at the SRA, said that after a “very constructive meeting” with minority lawyers on Monday this week, the two sides were “hopefully on the way to an agreement”.

Lalani said that, as soon as there were terms of reference “which everyone is satisfied with”, the review could begin.

She said the SRA’s original projection was that the review would take three months, but that was based on a smaller sample of cases than the regulator had now agreed was necessary.

“We don’t want to rush through it. This needs to be a thorough piece of work and a review that is credible.”

Peter Herbert, chairman of the Society of Black Lawyers, said that instead of the random sample of 20 cases originally proposed by the SRA, the minority groups had agreed that Professor John should study 160 cases, half of them involving minority lawyers, half of them white lawyers.

Each group of 80 cases would be divided in half again, between cases which were dealt with by the SDT and those which were adjudicated by the SRA, but did not proceed to the tribunal.

In addition, Herbert said the minority groups had found a “form of words” to allow the professor to look at such which were “relevant and necessary” to his terms of reference.

Herbert said that this would include a group of around 14 cases, some of which had reached the courts, in which solicitors had raised the issue of race discrimination.

“It is not for us to dictate to Professor John what he looks at, but these cases can’t be ring-fenced and put to one side as the SRA was suggesting.

“None of the courts looked at the substantive issue of race discrimination in any detail.”

“The review could start pretty quickly,” Herbert said. “It’s quite a substantial review and I would imagine a timescale of three to six months. It certainly won’t be able to report back this year.”

Copyright & permissions