In a significant decision by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT), allegations of misconduct against two prominent solicitors over the handling of volume financial mis-selling claims have been dismissed.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) faced a judicial setback as the SDT ruled against accusations levelled at Craig Cooper, managing director at Barings Law, and Erich Kurtz, a former director at the same firm. The tribunal, after an extensive four-day hearing, concluded that the allegations did not hold merit. These allegations involved claims of misleading statements to clients and potential clients regarding claims against payday lenders in 2018. Additionally, accusations were made about inadequate case assessments and failures in obtaining clients’ informed consent before proceeding with claims.
Furthermore, Mr Cooper was accused of improperly receiving £230,500 into the firm’s client account without adequate client due diligence. However, the tribunal cleared him of such charges, compelling the SRA to cover legal costs amounting to £30,000—£20,000 for Mr Cooper and £10,000 for Mr Kurtz. The tribunal’s decision to impose costs reflects its conclusion that the regulatory body’s case lacked merit.
Mr Cooper, reflecting on the outcome, expressed that the allegations were not only baseless but also represented a significant misuse of resources and time. He criticised the SRA’s approach, suggesting a need for better pre-hearing allegation evaluations to avoid unnecessary tribunal processes. Mr Cooper affirmed Barings Law’s dedication to managing high-volume claims efficiently, ensuring communication with regulatory authorities remains transparent and progressive.
Despite the tribunal’s decision, the SRA has withheld further comment until the full ruling is issued. Previously, SRA chief executive Paul Philip had voiced concerns about the conduct surrounding volume litigation, highlighting the organisation’s ongoing attention to these matters.
In 2020, Barings Law participated in a high-profile test case against Elevate Credit International (known as Sunny), where it was determined that Sunny had violated the Consumer Credit Sourcebook by failing to adequately assess borrowers’ circumstances.
The tribunal’s decision to dismiss the misconduct allegations marks an essential precedent in the realm of volume litigation, highlighting the need for due diligence in regulatory accusations. As the legal field continues to evolve, maintaining clear communication and robust processes remain imperative for law firms navigating complex, high-volume cases.
