
Oakalls Consultancy Limited
tcalvert@oakallsconsultancy.co.uk
Two disciplinary investigations have been reported this month which have led me to consider the significance of supervision in law firms and the role of supervision in supporting an ethical and regulatory-compliant workplace.
In the first report a solicitor had been struck off the Roll of Solicitors by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal on dishonesty charges. The solicitor had pretended to carry out litigation in circumstances where there were not any court proceedings and had provided her client with fictitious email updates on a case which did not exist. On leaving her job, the solicitor took steps to close the case by taking money from another client’s account, falsifying probate records in order to do so, and sending a cheque for the exact amount of the maximum damages the client had intended to claim and the court fees to the client.
In the second matter, a solicitor was rebuked and fined £2,000 by the SRA because her lack of supervision contributed to a decision that a trainee’s two years of work did not count towards her qualification. In this case the disciplined solicitor was an in-house legal consultant who had been authorised by the SRA as a training supervisor. In July 2011, a trainee was employed by the business and supervised by the solicitor. However, the supervising solicitor was on maternity leave from October 2011 to February 2013, during which time the trainee was unsupervised but continued to undertake legal work as a trainee solicitor. The wording of the regulatory settlement agreement records the finding that the supervising solicitor had not complied with her regulatory obligations.
The supervision role cannot be underestimated by law firms or those who assume the title, not least because it is frequently referenced by the SRA in their regulatory toolkit. For example, a very unscientific Google search threw up 544 references to the word “supervision” in the SRA Handbook alone and this in in circumstances where the term is neither defined nor included in the SRA Handbook Glossary.
In the first report, would adequate supervision have revealed, or better still prevented, the circumstances which led to the fictitious litigation? In the second report, why was the lack of supervision not addressed earlier so that steps could be taken to address the issues and what was the quality of the legal work undertaken by the trainee in the absence of appropriate oversight?
Supervision supports SRA Principle 8 (“you must run your business or carry out your role in the business effectively and in accordance with proper governance and sound financial and risk management principles”) and, of course, is very clearly stated in chapter 7 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011 which deals with compliance and ethical requirements relating to the management of your business. A particularly obvious example of expectations is in Outcome (7.8) and the requirement that “you have a system for supervising clients’ matters, to include the regular checking of the quality of work by suitably competent and experienced people”. There is also the need to comply with Outcome (7.7) and the duty to ensure that “you comply with the statutory requirements for the direction and supervision of reserved legal activities and immigration work”.
Managers and compliance officers should take steps to ensure that the risks of poor supervision are addressed in their compliance plans, and that supervision of colleagues is adequate and effective. Such steps should be able to demonstrate oversight of the quality and safeness of the work which is undertaken on behalf of clients of the firm, and also ensure that ethical and regulatory compliance issues are identified and dealt with in a timely manner.
What supervision looks like is very much a matter of judgement and needs to take into account many different things such as the type of business, and the way in which it delivers services, the type and experience of colleagues in the firm and the complexity of their roles. It should generate feedback both for the individual being supervised and, I would suggest, for those in managerial and risk and compliance roles. Does someone need specific training? Is a business requirement not suitable or needs modification? How will issues be addressed and remedied? Are trainees and more junior colleagues being appropriately supported in their roles?
This also triggers the need to consider the support which the supervisors themselves should be able to expect from the firm. If they are to “carry out their role in the business effectively” (or in other words, achieve Principle 8), what skills do they need to acquire? I would suggest that the role requires far more than simply having experience of a particular subject area and extends into skills connected with effective coaching and communication qualities. Also, do supervisors need training in the compliance culture which the managers and compliance officers are instilling in the business, and do they need to have clear agreement about the resources, including time, which are available to them to fulfill these particular roles?
Appropriate supervisory methods will feed into and encourage many other positive behaviours in the workplace. These include monitoring and improving client care values, addressing the competencies which are expected of solicitors when delivering a proper standard of service, developing appropriate training regimes, and fostering the all-important virtues of openness and accountability.
By Tracey Calvert
17th April 2016