The SRA has been dragged into the politically-sensitive row after the Association of Muslim Lawyers (AML) and the Society of Black Lawyers unearthed figures claiming that 63% of the SRA’s misconduct investigations last year came against solicitors from ethnic minority backgrounds.
The two groups claim the 2006 statistics show that racial bias has been a factor in the SRA’s intervention work rather than simply penalising sub-standard legal practice.
It is understood one group is now considering setting up an alternative regulator for black and ethnic minority solicitors in the
Controversial MP Keith Vaz (pictured), the chairman of the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee, has also waded into the row and is expected to lock horns with SRA chief executive Antony Townsend this week.
However, the SRA has swiftly moved to fend off the criticism with the watchdog calling on the relevant parties to work together to resolve the issue.
Townsend said: “One MP has claimed that 63% of the solicitors’ firms closed by us in 2006 were non-white. This is misleading. The real facts are that the practices of two Asian and nine black solicitors were closed down, compared with 22 white/European solicitors and 26 solicitors whose race is not known. In all these cases, there was evidence of serious risk to the public.”
He added: “We simply do not target solicitors or firms on the basis of race. Our job is to protect the public and we apply our policies fairly and consistently.”
The SRA also argues that there is a higher proportion of black and ethnic minority lawyers than the current national average working in small practices or as sole practitioners, a group that is historically and statistically more likely to get into trouble.
Talkback: Worrying imbalance or political correctness gone mad? Click here to have your say.
