COLP's duty to report suspected alteration of a signed witness statement (Code for Firms 9.1)
Haverford Law LLP handles high volumes of personal injury claims. Its compliance officer for legal practice (COLP), Amina Yusuf, finds credible evidence during a file audit that an associate altered a client's witness statement after the client had signed it. The altered statement was then filed at court. The managing partner wants to wait for the outcome of an internal disciplinary hearing in three months' time before deciding whether to tell anyone outside the firm, to protect the firm's reputation.
What does the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms require of Amina?
Choose one answer to see the reasoning.
Worked answer
Correct answer A: She must take all reasonable steps to ensure a prompt report to the SRA of facts she reasonably believes are capable of amounting to a serious breach.
THE RULE TO REMEMBER
A COLP must take all reasonable steps to ensure a prompt report to the SRA of facts reasonably believed capable of amounting to a serious breach; proof is not required first.
COLP's duty to report suspected alteration of a signed witness statement (Code for Firms 9.1)
Paragraph 9.1 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms requires a COLP to take all reasonable steps to ensure that a prompt report is made to the SRA of any facts or matters that they reasonably believe are capable of amounting to a serious breach of the SRA's regulatory arrangements by the firm, its managers or its employees. The test is not that a breach has been proved. It is a reasonable belief that the facts are capable of amounting to a serious breach. Credible evidence that a signed witness statement was altered and filed at court suggests possible dishonesty and misleading the court. That is capable of being a serious breach (Code for Solicitors paras 1.4 and 2.2; Principles 1, 4 and 5). Waiting three months for an internal process would not be 'prompt'. Concern for the firm's reputation is no reason to delay. The firm itself has parallel duties under paras 3.9 and 3.11, and must not subject anyone to detrimental treatment for reporting (para 3.12).
Why B is wrong: The trigger is a reasonable belief that facts are capable of amounting to a serious breach, not proof; delaying for three months would not be prompt.
Why C is wrong: The COFA's specific duty to report serious breaches (para 9.2(b)) concerns the SRA Accounts Rules; whatever the COFA must also do under 9.2(c), the COLP has her own duty under para 9.1(d) to ensure a prompt report of this serious breach.
Why D is wrong: Whatever steps are needed in the proceedings, the Code for Firms separately requires a prompt report to the SRA.
Why E is wrong: The duty does not depend on any complaint by the client.
A little more practice done.
Related questions
Right-to-reply letter threatening a journalist with remedies unavailable in a civil claim (SLAPPs)
Which of the following best describes how the firm should respond to these instructions?
Undertaking to pay an expert's fee when the client has not put the firm in funds (Code 1.3)
Which of the following best describes Gareth's position under the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors?
Settlement NDA that would stop a claimant reporting an assault to the police (NDA warning notice)
Which of the following best describes whether the firm may include the clause?
A GOOD HABIT, DELIVERED
Tomorrow's question.
In your inbox.
One free question a day, with the answer and reasoning.
No course pitches. Just your daily practice.