A solicitor, or any other person employed in a firm that is regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), is liable to be disciplined for a breach of the law or a breach of any part of a number of SRA Regulations. The SRA Handbook can be complex and confusing and so it can be easy for an individual or firm to unintentionally fall foul of the SRA’s various regulations. We are specialists in the interpretation and application of SRA regulations and so can advise you and your firm on a wide range of compliance issues.
Our SRA disciplinary lawyers have an established reputation and proven track record for presenting a robust defence when representing solicitors before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. In addition we can also help
…show more content…
In addition to these sanctions the matter could be referred to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal and the conduct of employees or managers can be referred to an appropriate regulator if they are regulated by another body or require that a non-solicitor not be employed or remunerated by any solicitor etc. without the consent of the SRA.
What we do
Our experienced SRA Disciplinary solicitors regularly make a significant difference to other lawyers who are under investigation or who need regulatory advice on the following
…show more content…
Get in touch If you would like to speak to one of our SRA regulatory solicitors in strict confidence, then please:
• Request a free call back using the form on the right
• Phone us during office hours on 0845 216 2000
• Email us at help@richardnelsonllp.co.uk.
Defence Lawyers for Doctors
Our experienced defence lawyers have provided expert legal representation and advice for doctors at every stage of their careers, from Consultants to Medical Students. Our GMC defence lawyers provide expert representation throughout England and Wales to doctors who are not members of a medical defence organisation or who may have been refused representation by their union, for example if the allegation relates to a doctor’s personal life.
A doctor may be subject to an investigation as a result of a range of issues relating to their clinical practice or their private life. These can involve misconduct, poor performance, convictions and cautions, health and other adverse decisions by other regulatory
In the healthcare industry, medical malpractice has a history that extends way beyond the days of physicians carrying a black bag full of medication and remedies to treat patients. Health care has since evolved to digital technology that can detect and treat disease. However, before physicians had advanced machinery making medical diagnosis, doctors had their textbooks and medical judgment to rely on for treatment. Physicians are human and medical mistakes can happen, but should not happen due to negligence. With that said, medical malpractice lawsuits are not the latest trend in the United States. According to the US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health, medical malpractice lawsuits first appeared in the United States beginning in the 1800s. However, before the 1960s, legal claims for medical malpractice were rare, and had little impact on the practice of medicine. Since the 1960s the frequency of medical malpractice claims has increased; and today, lawsuits filed by aggrieved patients alleging malpractice by a physician are relatively common in the United States.
Learning from what Dr. Anna Pou had to face with the lawsuits she was dealing with makes me cringe. As Healthcare professionals, having to worry of possibly being sued for believing what is right for the patient or as a whole for the hospitals health is ridiculous. Healthcare professionals like Dr. Pou, have taken the Hippocratic oath, and one of the promises made within that oath is “first, do no harm”. Often time’s society look at courts cases as a battle versus two oppositions, but Dr. Pou’s case it is not. In her statements from national television she states saying her role was to ‘‘help’’ patients ‘‘through their pain,’’.
Medical error occurs more than most people realize and when a doctor is found negligent the patient has the right to sue for compensation of their losses. Debates and issues arise when malpractice lawsuits are claimed. If a patient is filing for a medical malpractice case, the l...
Forrester, K., & Griffiths, D. (2010). Essentials of law for health professionals. Sydney: Mosby Elsevier. Retrieved from Google Books.
He said, “Studies of specific types of error, too, have found that repeat offenders are not the problem. The fact is that virtually everyone who cares for hospital patients will make serious mistakes, and even commit acts of negligence, every year. For this reason, doctors are seldom outraged when the press reports yet another medical horror story. They usually have a different reaction: This could be me. The important question isn’t how to keep bad physicians from harming patients; it’s how to keep good physicians from harming patients” (658). Like Gawande asked—how do you keep good physicians from harming patients? Even the best of doctors and surgeons manage to make mistakes that led to being sued or even worst—they get to experience the death of their
At the behest of Solicitor General John Les, an inquiry was launched in February o...
I also examined all relevant documents to extract key information such as dates, applications submitted and how decisions were reached; the client had a large bundle with correspondence dating from 2009 to 2015. I used my strong organisational skills to construct a detailed chronology to aid my analysis. I initially researched the matter on the Citizens Advice internal advice guide; however the information on the guide was not sufficient. I then researched statutes, case law and journals to draw a conclusion. Also, I analysed the submissions and case law the client’s previous solicitor had prepared. I identified from my research, that the client may be able to make an application for judicial
Since 15th century, barristers have been split up into two professions in United Kingdom, Barristers and Barristers. Barristers have traditionally been the people who research cases, deal with clients directly, and Barristers have had the rights of advocate in courts. Hence, Barristers' ethical duties are very important to the court and the client, and this is an essay to discuss the duties to the court, clients and conflicts in between.
Medical malpractice cases are difficult for the families who have lost their loved one or have suffered from severe injuries. No one truly wins in complicated court hearings that consist of a team of litigation attorneys for both the defendant and plaintiff(s). During the trial, evidence supporting malpractice allegations have to be presented so that the court can make a decision if the physician was negligent resulting in malpractice, or if the injury was unavoidable due to the circumstances. In these types of tort cases, the physician is usually a defendant on trial trying to prove that he or she is innocent of the medical error, delay of treatment or procedure that caused the injury. The perfect example of being at fault for medical malpractice as a result of delaying a procedure is the case of Waverly family versus John Hopkins Health System Corporation. The victims were not compensated enough for the loss of their child’s normal life. Pozgar (2012) explained….
Studdert, David M. "Defensive Medicine Among High-Risk Specialist Physicians in a Volatile Malpractice Environment, June 1, 2005, Studdert Et Al. 293 (21): 2609." JAMA, the Journal of the American Medical Association, a Weekly Peer-reviewed Medical Journal Published by AMA. American Medical Association, 1 June 2005. Web. 31 May 2010. .
To begin a claim in professional negligence, you must begin with establishing that there is a professional duty of care owed towards the plaintiff. The most significant case in relation to professional negligence is Hedley Byrne v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465. This is because for the first time, it established that a third party relying upon a statement made the him/her may be owed a duty of care by the maker of that statement. The outcome from the Hedley Byrne v Heller Partners (1964) established that a duty of care would be owed (in relation to statements) where there is a ‘special relationship’ between the giver and recipient of the advice or statement. Despite this, a definition for a ‘special relationship’ was not fully defined, however it tends to go by meeting these three requirements; a reliance by the claimant of the defendant’s special skill and judgement; knowledge, or reasonable expectation of knowledge on the part of the defendant, that the claimant was relying on the statement; and that it is reasonable in the ...
The Private Security and Investigative Service Act do not cover barristers, solicitors, insurance adjusters to name a few. The reason why they are not covered is because these jobs listed above are financially rewarding and under the act you aren't supposed to be soliciting or collecting money on behalf of
When professionals in the health sector are compliant to the standards and ethics of practice, then accidents in the sector and any activities that undermine patient safety are bound to be addressed. In particular, whistleblowers in the sector should also be protected to improve service delivery in the health sector.
In company law, registered companies are complicated with the concepts of separate legal personality as the courts do not have a definite rule on when to lift the corporate veil. The concept of ‘Separate legal personality’ is created under the Companies Act 1862 and the significance of this concept is being recognized in the Companies Act 2006 nowadays. In order to avoid personal liability, it assures that individuals are sanctioned to incorporate companies to separate their business and personal affairs. The ‘separate legal personality’ principle was further reaffirmed in the courts through the decision of Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd. , and it sets the rock in which our company law rests which stated that the legal entity distinct from its
It is also argued that solicitors are too close to the issues to argue the case well. Some people say that the double manning of cases is also responsible for some inefficiency. It encourages the ‘shrugging off’ of responsibility. Responsibility can be pushed from one to the other and standards will fall. OTHER COUNTRIES