The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) Delusion - Part II - Why We Need to Expose the SRA to More Daylight, Public Scrutiny
In Part I we emphasised that the SRA is neither effective nor regulated (except by itself, which is absurd). It was contacted by us a year ago and after some inquiries we filed a complaint, which this series will explain, then explore in depth.
Only a few months earlier the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition criticised the SRA and we spoke to the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition as well as other NGOs. They phoned us about it. Some law firms also offered to assist. They recognised that what we experienced was abusive and that our complaint had merit. Months later, in the courtroom, I boxed a SLAPPer (who fantasises about punching people) under sworn oath and he pretty much confirmed - on the court's record in fact - that what we deemed abusive was true and that they had colluded with another American (from Microsoft) to drain our legal budget. Only weeks before the court case culminated in this critical admission/confession "The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) Has Reportedly Failed People With Wrong Advice" (as we put it at the time).
SRA is basically a bunch of garbage and maybe the place where people end up when they cannot find employment in a law firm and instead 'fall back' on lower-paid positions in the 'public sector'.
Put another way, SRA is a magnet for 'rejects'; there's this stereotype about judges too, as their salaries are probably always (universally) a lot lower than equivalent positions - as per experience level - in the private sector.
This series isn't impulsive. It has been planned since last year. Now we have additional information that proves that the SRA was wrong. It ultimately failed.
The issues we wrote about in March 2025 are real, and moreover I was defamed by Brett Wilson LLP for raising those issues, repeatedly. Their American clients worked in tandem, it was a "tag team" play; we know they collaborated, so SRA staff was failing to see what a sworn testimony later confirmed (the firm complained of had also lied to the court repeatedly, which is an offence that the SRA should hold it accountable for).
The SRA spoke of "hired guns" in 2023. Why does it not do anything about them? Are "hired guns" too powerful to tackle?
Regarding Brett Wilson LLP, it's barely a law firm; they advertise themselves as "reputation management" (for rogue people). They recruit accordingly. For instance, the person who worked on the file is a former PR professional from Australia (she has since then left this firm, perhaps seeing how evil a job she was doing, trying - and failing - to bill me for her PR work commissioned by a strangler of women). It's vastly better to be unemployed than to let ugly, evil men attack women.
The issue here is not just SLAPPs; it's also about law firms lying to courts, time after time. It's moreover about religion- or race-based abuses. Why didn't the SRA do anything about lawyers who keep breaching such fundamental rules? Or two American men who treat women poorly?
Incompetent staff or institution (collectively), the SRA failed in ways that range from outright ridiculous (embarrassing stuff) to overall poor performance.
Some honest, humble staff would do the job a lot better, but when "hired guns" are presumed to just be "doing their job" we have no chance of finding this regulator resorting to bite or even bark unless some hired gun was tactless enough to just shout racist things out in public (this makes regulation easy, but it is a rarity that depends on tactlessness, carelessness).
My wife's experience as well as mine was very negative. SRA is time-wasting and it gives false hopes for complainants, with fruitless discussions and technical hilarity (they hardly know the very basics about technology they use at work, so it's like they hired failed lawyers or 'fallen' angels who cannot find a high-paying job in a law firm).
I'd go further and assert that the SRA is a total waste of public money that could instead be spent on a proper, potent regulator or giving assistance to vulnerable people (e.g. disabled people).
SRA needs to be scrapped and rebooted. It's not only us claiming so; other people complained similarly, some of them in public.
We'll contact politicians about this later this month. █
Image source: Fore-edge for a copy of The Royal Kalendar, and Court and City Register