Lewis Silkin are most popular: <\/p>\n
\n within Cannabis & Hemp, Law Practice Management and Transport topic(s)
\n in United Kingdom
\n with readers working within the Retail & Leisure industries
<\/p>\n
Law firms regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority
\nshould take note of the SRA’s expectations when it comes to
\nequality, diversity and inclusion.<\/p>\n
Equality, diversity and inclusion is on the agenda of many
\nregulators at the moment. In September last year, the SRA published
\nnew guidance setting out its expectations. If you are a law firm,
\nyou’ll want to pay close attention. This article explains
\nwhat’s in the guidance and some of its practical implications.
\nThe New Year could be an opportune time for a refresh of your
\nexisting systems and controls, with this guidance in mind.<\/p>\n
What’s prompted the new guidance?<\/p>\n
The SRA Principles<\/a> (which set out the SRA’s
The SRA first published guidance on what this means in practice
It was therefore high time for an update. In its news release,
What does the new guidance say?<\/p>\n The updated guidance can be seen as a codification in some
What this means for law firms in practice<\/p>\n In its news release, the SRA is keen to underline that it has
While the updated guidance is far more detailed than its
You will want to comb through the guidance to check that you are
Take note, also, that the SRA’s expectations around EDI are
What’s next?<\/p>\n The updated guidance and corresponding news release make clear
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
\n“fundamental tenets of ethical behaviour”)
\nrequire regulated firms and individuals to act “in a way
\nthat encourages equality, diversity and inclusion”
\n(EDI).<\/p>\n
\nback in 2019. Much has changed since then. Aside from shifting
\nexpectations and practice within the legal industry, there have
\nbeen two key regulatory changes since the SRA’s original
\nguidance:<\/p>\n
\nIn 2023, the SRA brought in an explicit rule requiring
\nregulated individuals and firms to treat colleagues\/those who work
\nfor them, and with them, fairly and with respect. This includes an
\nobligation not to bully, harass or discriminate unfairly.
\n
\nIn 2024, the law was changed to require all employers (not just
\nlaw firms) to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual
\nharassment.
<\/p>\n
\nthe SRA recognised recent progress but acknowledged there is
\n“more that we and others can do to encourage EDI in the
\nlegal profession” pointing out that:<\/p>\n
\na diverse and inclusive legal profession is vital in
\nmaintaining public confidence in our sector and the justice
\nsystem;
\n
\na legal profession that both welcomes and reflects the diverse
\ncommunity it serves will encourage more people to seek legal help,
\nimproving access to justice;
\n
\na diverse and inclusive workforce can deliver benefits in terms
\nof productivity and innovation.
<\/p>\n
\nrespects, bringing together the SRA’s expectations when it
\ncomes to EDI and in many places linking to existing guidance. There
\nare, however, some key additions, including:<\/p>\n
\nAdditional guidance for managers on challenging the
\nbehaviour of other people. This builds on the SRA’s
\nexisting Workplace environment<\/a> guidance (see our
\nearlier article here<\/a>). The new guidance includes an example
\nexplaining that a partner at a law firm must act when a solicitor
\ncomplains about repeated suggestive comments made by security
\nstaff.
\n
\nSome new useful case examples about treating
\ncolleagues, clients and others fairly and with respect, and when
\nacting for clients who behave in a discriminatory way, together
\nwith example communications which may be considered offensive.
\n
\nA list of example proactive steps
\n(proportionate to the size of the firm) to encourage a diverse
\nworkforce at all levels. These include keeping recruitment,
\nprogression, reward and recognition policies under review to make
\nsure they are not creating unfair or unlawful barriers for
\nunderrepresented groups.
\n
\nNew guidance on terminating a retainer with a
\nclient who behaves in an offensive or discriminatory way.
\nThe guidance makes clear that firms should have a process in place
\nfor warning clients that this sort of behaviour may entitle the
\nfirm to terminate the retainer and allowing clients a chance to
\nchallenge any proposed termination.
\n
\nA new section on reporting obligations. In
\nthis section, the SRA has emphasised: “[w]e do not act on
\nall complaints and reports. We focus on conduct or patterns of
\nbehaviour which amount to serious misconduct. This will generally
\ninclude, but is not limited to sexual misconduct, unfair
\ndiscrimination, abuse of position and taking unfair
\nadvantage.”
\n
\nA reminder that sexual misconduct, unfair
\ndiscrimination and non-sexual harassment, are unsuitable for a
\nfinancial penalty, except in exceptional
\ncircumstances.
\n
\nA reminder that, while the SRA is primarily concerned about
\nconduct which relates to an individual or firm’s legal
\npractice, conduct does not need to take place in a workplace in
\norder to relate to practice. Some matters, including
\ndiscriminatory conduct, sexual misconduct or offensive
\ncommunications on social media, are so serious that they are
\ncapable of damaging public confidence in the solicitors’
\nprofession, even if they are not linked to legal practice.
\n
\nTwo new annexes which set out terms used in
\nthe guidance (Annex 1) and actions that law firms can take to
\nsupport compliance (Annex 2). The SRA makes clear at the start of
\nAnnex 1 that when it is considering conduct in breach of its
\nPrinciples, the SRA is not constrained by the legal
\ndefinitions set out in the Equality Act, nor limited to
\nconsidering conduct which is related solely to the protected
\ncharacteristics in the Equality Act (more on this point
\nbelow).
<\/p>\n
\nnot changed its approach and that the updated guidance provides,
\n“further support for those we regulate to help them
\nunderstand our expectations and what those expectations mean in
\npractice.” While the new and expanded guidance will
\ngenerally be welcomed by law firms, this statement potentially
\ncreates some uncertainty over whether the SRA would apply the new
\nguidance retroactively, to situations that happened before its
\npublication.<\/p>\n
\npredecessor in many respects, it remains detail light in some
\nareas. For instance, there’s no example of when it would be
\nacceptable to terminate a client retainer without notice. Also, the
\nadditional guidance on challenging behaviours only gives one
\npractical example. In practice, keeping a close eye on decisions
\nmade by the SRA and the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal will
\ncontinue to be important for understanding the SRA’s
\nexpectations.<\/p>\n
\nimplementing all the recommended actions. This is particularly so
\nif you are a large firm: the SRA has made clear that where the term
\n‘should’ has been used in Annex 2, “the
\nsuggestions are not mandatory for every firm, although we would
\nexpect larger firms to be undertaking many of these actions to make
\nsure they are meeting their obligations set out in the
\nguidance.”<\/p>\n
\nbroader than the Equality Act 2010. For example, the guidance
\nstates that the SRA would not only consider the nine protected
\ncharacteristics under the Equality Act 2010, but misconduct related
\nto e.g. someone’s socio-economic background or because they
\nhave a strong regional accent. This makes clear that SRA-regulated
\nfirms are under duties to uphold EDI that go further than the legal
\nrequirement applying to all employers. You’ll want to consider
\nif your current diversity and inclusion training is suitable to
\naddress this.<\/p>\n
\nthat EDI will remain a hot topic for the SRA in 2026. Given the new
\nguidance and the ongoing levels of EDI-related misconduct reports
\nbeing made to the SRA (which have apparently not reduced despite
\nthe 2023 Code updates), law firms should look to start the New Year
\nwith an EDI review and refresh, to ensure the SRA’s updated
\nexpectations are being met<\/p>\n
\nguide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
\nabout your specific circumstances.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Lewis Silkin are most popular:
within Cannabis & Hemp, Law Practice Management and Transport topic(s)
in United…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":15222,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[59,57,58,50,56,54,55],"class_list":["post-386027","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-united-kingdom","tag-gb","tag-great-britain","tag-greatbritain","tag-news","tag-uk","tag-united-kingdom","tag-unitedkingdom"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/386027","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=386027"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/386027\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/15222"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=386027"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=386027"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=386027"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}