Once broken, the foundations of the solicitor-client relationship are difficult to forgive

What professional standards are expected of solicitors in the digital age? This is one of the questions the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has been asking as part of its ‘A Question of Trust’ consultation. As well as engaging with the profession, public consultations are taking place around the country and this is, in part, what has taken the SRA's roadshow around the political party conferences over the past few weeks.

As part of this tour of the geopolitical landscape, I was invited by the SRA to the Conservative party's annual shindig in Manchester to chair a panel discussion and get to the heart of what the public – albeit the committed Conservative wing of the public – think about solicitors, the legal profession, and what appropriate punishments should be for our colleagues who don’t live up to the standards required.

I was joined on the panel by Enid Rowlands, the lay chair of the SRA, and two former solicitors: the multi-talented, nine-time gold medal winning Paralympic swimmer, and equality campaigner, Lord Holmes of Richmond, and Alberto Costa, who moved from the Treasury Solicitors Office to take up his seat as the member of parliament for South Leicestershire after May’s general election. The variety of legal experience, both on the panel and in the room, quickly became evident, as we were joined by barristers, journalists, and frequent consumers of legal services.

The novel exercise, including Saturday night TV-style live voting, music, and graphics, took into account several fictional circumstances relating to the personal and professional conduct of solicitors the SRA might be asked to consider. Some were so closely related to real-life dilemmas to make practitioners in the room slightly uncomfortable.

Ranging from motoring offences (drink-driving) to serious professional misconduct (changing a will to favour the adviser), attendees were invited to vote in favour of what they believed to be appropriate penalties, ranging from no concern to striking off. It soon became clear that where trust and integrity were in question, tolerance for even simple, one-off, innocent mistakes was limited. It is these fundamental principles – the foundations of the solicitor-client relationship – which, once broken, are difficult to forgive.

Everyone can make mistakes, and the SRA’s shift to outcomes-focused regulation has made some allowances for this. That said, it was reassuring to learn that on key concerns fundamental to the solicitors profession, the public and profession took a broadly similar view. Strike off might be a draconian punishment, but it is there for the good of solicitors and society

In the past decade, remote working and social media have become impossible to ignore, and foolish errors of judgement have become increasingly commonplace. Breaches of confidentiality and the careless treatment of personally or commercially sensitive information are rightly frowned upon. What’s more, losing control on such information once it is in the public domain means the potential for serious damage is of real concern, far beyond what might have been contemplated or even possible a decade ago.

The consultation will run until the New Year, and I would encourage everyone to attend a session where possible. The results will make fascinating reading and will shape future regulation of a profession that continues to evolve and firms continue to innovate and develop. If nothing else, you will be reassured, hopefully, that the gold standard of solicitors is being preserved for the next generation.

Kevin Poulter, editor at large