Wadsworths Solicitors Ltd

Decision - Fined

Outcome: Fine

Outcome date: 13 August 2021

Published date: 14 September 2021

Firm details

No detail provided:

Outcome details

This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

Decision details

Wadsworths Solicitors Limited is a licensed body whose head office is 325 Stratford Road, Shirley, B90 3BL.

The SRA Transparency Rules came into effect on 6 December 2018. They require all firms authorised and regulated by the SRA to display specified information on their websites if they provide certain types of legal services. The purpose of the Rules is to ensure people have accurate and relevant information about a solicitor or firm when they are considering purchasing legal services. They are intended to help members of the public and small businesses make informed choices, improving competition in the legal market.

The firm has failed to publish mandatory details about costs on its websites in breach of Rule 1.1 of the SRA Transparency Rules.

The firm was ordered to pay a financial penalty of £750 and costs of £600.

The following condition was imposed on the firm’s authorisation with immediate effect:

If the firm publishes as available any of the services specified in Rules 1.3 or 1.4 of the Transparency Rules, it must provide evidence to the SRA’s reasonable satisfaction that, in respect of each of those services:

1. it publishes the information specified in Rule 1.5 of the Transparency Rules, and
2. such information is clear and accessible and is in a prominent place on its website.

Such evidence must be provided to the SRA within 30 days of this condition coming into effect.

Reasons/basis

The adjudicator considers that it is appropriate to direct the firm to pay a financial penalty for the following reasons:

The Rules were widely publicised before coming into force.

The firm was advised that it remained in breach, and while it took steps to remedy this, it still failed to publish all the required information on its website.

Despite being aware of the risk of contuining non-compliance, the firm failed to fully comply.

The Rules play an important role in driving consumer access to affordable legal services. They are only effective if there is widespread compliance in the profession. Each firm that does not implement them erodes the ability of consumers to make meaningful comparisons between firms. As such, the firm’s failure to comply undermines the effectiveness of the Rules and the benefits they aim to deliver to consumers, and potential consumers, of legal services.

The firm had direct control and responsibility for the breaches that have occurred.

The Rules came into effect over two and a half years ago and the firm has not provided sufficient evidence that is now in full compliance.

To uphold public confidence in the solicitors profession given the importance of the Rules.

The adjudicator is satisfied that it is in the public interest to impose a condition for the following reasons:

The firm has provided no further evidence that it is now in compliance with the Rules and there is a risk that the firm will not comply with these without the condition being imposed. This is evidenced by the firm’s continued non-compliance with the rules despite being made aware of the relevant requirements since at least April 2021.

The firm’s conduct is likely to be repeated in the absence of a condition. This is demonstrated by the firm’s failure to ensure compliance despite the SRA’s correspondence.

A condition will address the risk of repetition, and the recommended condition is reasonable and proportinate, realistic and measurable.

There is no evidence to date that the firm’s conduct has caused any lasting significant harm to consumers or third parties.

Decision - Control of practice

Outcome: Condition

Outcome date: 13 August 2021

Published date: 18 August 2021

Firm details

No detail provided:

Outcome details

This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

Decision details

To impose the following condition on Wadsworth Solicitors Ltd’s authorisation with immediate effect:

If the firm publishes as available any of the services specified in the rules 1.3 or 1.4 of the SRA Transparency Rules, the firm must in respect of each of those services provide evidence to the SRA’s reasonable satisfaction that it:

1. publishes on its website the information specified in rule 1.5 of the Transparency Rules; and
2. that such information is clear and accessible and in a prominent place on its website, in accordance with rule 1.6.

The firm must provide the SRA with the required evidence within 30 days of this condition coming into effect.

Reasons/basis

The adjudicator is satisfied that it is in the public interest to impose a condition for the following reasons:

The firm has provided no further evidence that it is now in compliance with the Rules and there is a risk that the firm will not comply with these without the condition being imposed. This is evidenced by the firm’s continued non-compliance with the rules despite being made aware of the relevant requirements since at least April 2021.

The firm's conduct is likely to be repeated in the absence of a condition. This is demonstrated by the firm’s failure to ensure compliance despite the SRA’s correspondence.

A condition will address the risk of repetition, and the recommended condition is reasonable and proportinate, realistic and measurable.

There is no evidence to date that the firm's conduct has caused any lasting significant harm to consumers or third parties.