HUNDREDS of secret disciplinary hearings held each year against solicitors are expected to go public, in a drive to rid the profession of poor standards and dishonesty. At the same time, solicitors could face regular “MoT” tests in the shape of competence checks — to ensure, in the vogue words of the Home Secretary, that they are “fit for purpose”.

The man behind the moves is Peter Williamson, who was recently appointed to chair the Law Society’s independent and arm’s-length Regulation Board with its budget of £55 million a year.

With Antony Townsend, the profession’s first executive for regulation, Williamson plans a series of measures to raise standards in the 100,000-strong solicitors’ profession and head off overweening regulatory intervention from the proposed legal services board that ministers want to set up over the profession as a whole.

First, Williamson, a former Law Society president, would like the decisions in 600 cases a year that can lead to solicitors being severely reprimanded to be available to the public. He is also seeking powers to give the society tougher sanctions to keep solicitors in line and introduce “early warning” systems to spot lawyers going off the rails.

“We need new powers to make us a modern regulator along the lines of a body such as the Financial Services Authority (FSA). Our powers date back to the Solicitors’ Act 1974 and when I was an articled clerk. The Legal Services Bill provides a golden opportunity for new powers that we need and we are hopeful that we will get them.”

At present the most serious allegations go before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal where hearings are public. But there are hundreds of lesser cases where, in effect, secret adjudications are made. These can involve breaches of the solicitors’ professional rules such as overcharging; breach of an undertaking, such as not contacting a building society on a conveyancing matter; acting where there is a conflict of interest; or failing to supervise staff not admitted as solicitors.

Last year, of 594 adjudications held after a complaint about a solicitor, the society made 222 decisions to reprimand or severely reprimand 139 solicitors. The more serious cases, where conditions are attached to a solicitor’s practising certificate, are already made public to people who inquire.

Williamson says: “I feel that the findings of the adjudications that result in reprimands should be made public, where it would be in the public interest to do so. What we might do is run an agreed statement, between the solicitor and adjudicator, acknowledging a misdemeanour and the agreed action to be taken. What happens is that clients come to our complaints service and are looking for redress. Often, in the investigation of that, there may be a breach of the rules such as serial delay . . . and that may then go to an adjudicator.”

His proposals — which must be approved by the full Regulation Board and society council — are part of a package of measures, including plans for new criminal records checks on would-be solicitors before they are admitted to the roll, that come into force next month. They will be coupled with new guidelines for applicants on suitability to be a solicitor. At the same time, Williamson is seeking more training on professional conduct and ethics for entrants when doing their two-year training with law firms.

The society is also expected to win new powers, enjoyed by other regulators, to require law firms to review files and take appropriate action, as the FSA can do — such as with pensions mis-selling. A second power would be to appoint a receiver-manager to a firm where there has been dishonesty or misuse of clients’ money or maladministration. At present the society can intervene and take over a firm — as it did with 60 practices last year — but that effectively closes it down, affecting clients’ cases and destroying any worth in the business.

Meanwhile, there will be more targeting of firms falling by the wayside with an early warning system to help them before they fall foul of the rules. All lawyers now have to notch up continuing education points. But the idea is that there should be a scheme to monitor what they have learnt or ensure that their competence is up to scratch.

“Prevention is better than cure. We need to spend our money where it is most effective and we are carrying out an audit of all our activities to that end. One thing I would like to see is a more targeted and proportionate regulation: more visits to firms, more information on when firms are late with applications, for example, for practising certificates — an audit trail on firms.

“Many firms are doing very good work. But it’s the small number who adversely affect the reputation of the profession. We want to target those.”

• Damages in Giles Harding’s case (Lawyer of the Week, July 25), estimated in the region of £5 million, are yet to be assessed.

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• Linklaters trounces rivals as UK's biggest firm
• Clifford Chance profits plunge 37 per cent
• Casual drinkers hit by spread of 'dry' zones