Why I am to be struck off
Why I am to be struck off
Regulator to charge retired solicitors for keeping their status
In just over two months from now, I shall cease to be a non-practising solicitor. My name is currently on the electronic roll kept by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, which regulates solicitors in England and Wales. It records that I was admitted in 1976 and that I do not have a current practising certificate.
As it happens, I have never held a practising certificate. I have never practised as a solicitor. That was because I joined the BBC as a trainee journalist more than a year before I qualified.
For several years after that, I paid to keep my name on the roll. Perhaps I might have gone into practice. After a while, I decided that there was little point in keeping it up. The roll could not easily be inspected in those pre-internet days. Nobody knew what it looked like. I suspect it was more of a card index than a roll of parchment.
A few years ago, I decided to restore my name to the roll. I had heard that I was being nominated for appointment as an honorary QC and wrongly believed that a professional qualification was required. Since then, inertia has kept my name there.
Why, then, am I shortly to be struck off?
Earlier this week, I had a letter from the regulator. It was not unexpected. This is what it said:
The fee is £20. I think this is an annual charge, though that’s not clear. It may go up but — unlike some retired solicitors — I can well afford it. Why, then, have I decided not to pay?
First, I don’t believe that keeping my data online can cost the regulator as much as £20 a year. Why should I have to contribute towards the cost of regulating others? I would be prepared to pay a fee if I ever had to update my information — though that’s unlikely in my case as all they know about me is my name.
More importantly, though, there is a potential conflict of interest. People may not know that a regulator whose activities I occasionally write about has the power to strike me off. But it does; it will; and from 28 May I shall describe myself, if asked, as a former non-practising solicitor.
If I’m not allowed to do even that, I’m sure the regulator will let me know.
Update: A solicitor has suggested two me that a “former non-practising solicitor” could be one who was formerly non-practising but is now in practice. That sounds a bit legalistic to me, but perhaps I should think again.
Update 27 March: As Graham Dobson writes in the comments below, he took this issue up with the Solicitors Regulation Authority. A customer services advisor at the regulator’s contact centre assured him that wiping his record on his death should not be seen as “evaporating” his career history:
I am not surprised he found this offensive.
Update 3 April: It turns out that the Solicitors Regulation Authority will not “wipe the record” while a solicitor remains alive. The regulator says it will “retain all admission credentials” so that a former solicitor can apply to be restored to the roll at any time.
Update 20 June: I received a further communication from the regulator on 12 June. I’m still on the roll but it’s not clear for how much longer. Separately, the regulator has rebutted my suggestion that the fee is excessive.
Update 24 July: I am no longer on the roll.
Why I am to be struck off
As a Data Protection specialist, it seems to me that once you are stricken from the records for non-payment of, to my mind, an exorbitant fee of £20 for not removing your name from the roll, you should submit an annual Data Subject Access Request which will undoubtedly cost more than £20 to process and thereby nullify the entire process.
Not content with the inadequate explanation of the SRAs intentions, I asked if the fee is annual, and if so, what will happen to my Roll record when I am dead - I received the following reply…
“ We will be carrying out the keeping of the roll exercise annually and yes this will include payment of the fee.
Please note that when any solicitor passes away, we would ask to be informed so that we can update our records with details of the date of their passing and we then proceed to wipe the record.
We understand this may appear to be seen as evaporating your professional career history but that is by no means our intention, it is purely so that we can ensure are systems do not hold out of date information about solicitors.
The removal of solicitors data from our records upon your death would not in any way undermine your time and work as a solicitor it is simply so that our system records remain robust.”
How does the retention of Roll records prevent them from remaining “robust”? Why do they want the date of death of a solicitor, and then “proceed to wipe the record”? “Out of date” records seems to include all trace of solicitors of old.
Most occupations “robustly” preserve individual data, for example, those who bravely served in the Royal Navy at Trafalgar, and those who, like my great uncle were killed in action during WW1. And what of data on Prime Ministers over the centuries? Are their records also to be “wiped”? No because the institutions that employed them see the historical significance in preservation of their records.
It seems the SRA regard the “wiping” of records more important than historical significance. I assume that solicitors of centuries gone by will be wiped from legal history too…
I’m not going to pay annually and, like it or not, I will die. How sad that my descendants’ and others who might be interested, may not be able to look into my professional life if they enjoy ancestry as I do…that will be “wiped”.