<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"><channel><title>Legal Updates</title><link>https://www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/insights/blogs/regulatory-blog/legal-updates</link><generator>KohanaPHP</generator><item><title>Updated Insolvency Code of Ethics: what do insolvency practitioners need to know?</title><author>Jenny Higgins and Zoe Beels</author><link>https://www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/insights/blogs/regulatory-blog/updated-insolvency-code-of-ethics-what-do-insolvency-practitioners-need-to-know</link><pubDate>Thu, 02 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0100</pubDate><description>The Joint Insolvency Committee, in collaboration with the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW), the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland (ICAS) and the Insolvency Practitioners Association (IPA), has approved and issued a revised Insolvency Code of Ethics. The updated Code took effect from 1 October 2025.</description><guid>https://www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/insights/blogs/regulatory-blog/updated-insolvency-code-of-ethics-what-do-insolvency-practitioners-need-to-know</guid></item><item><title>No strike-off for dishonesty: A case law review of exceptional circumstances</title><author>Jessica Clay</author><link>https://www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/insights/blogs/regulatory-blog/no-strike-off-for-dishonesty-a-case-law-review-of-exceptional-circumstances</link><pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><description>In three recent judgments handed down by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (the ‘Tribunal’) – Solicitors Regulation Authority v Orton, Solicitors Regulation Authority v Panesar-Jagdev, and Solicitors Regulation Authority v McCullagh – the Tribunal found allegations of dishonesty proved but decided the circumstances fell within the small residual category of ‘exceptional circumstances’, thus warranting a more lenient sanction. In this blog, we consider recent case law in this area and, in particular, look at when the general rule of strike off for dishonesty has and has not been judged an appropriate sanction.</description><guid>https://www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/insights/blogs/regulatory-blog/no-strike-off-for-dishonesty-a-case-law-review-of-exceptional-circumstances</guid></item><item><title>Beckwith v SRA – are there implications for the regulation of professional accountants who face sexual misconduct allegations?</title><author>Julie Matheson</author><link>https://www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/insights/blogs/regulatory-blog/beckwith-v-sra-are-there-implications-for-the-regulation-of-professional-accountants-who-face-sexual-misconduct-allegations</link><pubDate>Thu, 21 Jan 2021 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><description>In our fourth blog in our series on Beckwith v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2020] EWHC 3231 (Admin), we turn our attention to consider what impact, if any, this landmark decision might have on the regulation of professional accountants. While the case turned on some very specific features relating to the regulation of solicitors as contained in the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s (SRA) Principles and Code of conduct, some parts of the judgment may have more general application.</description><guid>https://www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/insights/blogs/regulatory-blog/beckwith-v-sra-are-there-implications-for-the-regulation-of-professional-accountants-who-face-sexual-misconduct-allegations</guid></item><item><title>Beckwith v SRA – an analysis of the Court’s landmark decision</title><author>Iain Miller</author><link>https://www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/insights/blogs/regulatory-blog/beckwith-v-sra-an-analysis-of-the-courts-landmark-decision</link><pubDate>Mon, 18 Jan 2021 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><description>The decision of the Divisional Court in Beckwith v SRA [2020] EWHC 3231 (Admin) has attracted extensive press attention as it is the first SRA case involving allegations of sexual misconduct that are not based on criminal conviction to reach the High Court.  In high level terms the Court found that sexual misconduct cases should be confined to cases that clearly engage the SRA’s Code of Conduct and expressed the view that there were limits on how far a regulator should take action in relation to matters of private life.</description><guid>https://www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/insights/blogs/regulatory-blog/beckwith-v-sra-an-analysis-of-the-courts-landmark-decision</guid></item><item><title>Sexual misconduct allegations in law firms are ever-present – following due process is key</title><author>Kirsty Churm and Jessica Clay</author><link>https://www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/insights/blogs/regulatory-blog/sexual-misconduct-allegations-in-law-firms-are-ever-present-following-due-process-is-key</link><pubDate>Thu, 30 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0100</pubDate><description>As another case involving allegations of sexual misconduct relating to a senior partner of a law firm has been concluded before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal just this week, resulting in the imposition of a £10,000 fine being confirmed on 22 July 2020, it is perhaps safe to say that, for now, there is no sign that the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has lost its appetite to investigate and act on reports of this nature that it receives. </description><guid>https://www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/insights/blogs/regulatory-blog/sexual-misconduct-allegations-in-law-firms-are-ever-present-following-due-process-is-key</guid></item><item><title>No finding of dishonesty – dispensed with in quick order</title><author>Legal Services Regulation Team</author><link>https://www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/insights/blogs/regulatory-blog/no-finding-of-dishonesty-dispensed-with-in-quick-order</link><pubDate>Tue, 12 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><description>SRA v Siaw [2019] EWHC 2737 (Admin)</description><guid>https://www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/insights/blogs/regulatory-blog/no-finding-of-dishonesty-dispensed-with-in-quick-order</guid></item><item><title>StaRs: Reporting concerns - understanding your obligations</title><author>Iain Miller and Jessica Clay</author><link>https://www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/insights/blogs/regulatory-blog/stars-reporting-concerns-understanding-your-obligations</link><pubDate>Tue, 05 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><description>In the second blog in this series, we referred to the cooperating and reporting obligations in the new Codes of Conduct being notably different, when compared to corresponding provisions in the 2011 Code of Conduct and to other rules and regulations in the 2011 Handbook. </description><guid>https://www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/insights/blogs/regulatory-blog/stars-reporting-concerns-understanding-your-obligations</guid></item><item><title>All relevant evidence: a reminder to Regulators</title><author>Laura Vignoles</author><link>https://www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/insights/blogs/regulatory-blog/all-relevant-evidence-a-reminder-to-regulators</link><pubDate>Sun, 03 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><description>Professional Standards Authority (PSA) v General Dental Council (GDC) and another [2019] EWHC 2640 (Admin)</description><guid>https://www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/insights/blogs/regulatory-blog/all-relevant-evidence-a-reminder-to-regulators</guid></item><item><title>Understanding the new SRA Principles and Code: the long read</title><author>Jessica Clay and Iain Miller</author><link>https://www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/insights/blogs/regulatory-blog/understanding-the-new-sra-principles-and-code-the-long-read</link><pubDate>Thu, 24 Oct 2019 00:00:00 +0100</pubDate><description>In November 2015, the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) published its position paper “Looking to the Future”, through which it committed to a phased review of the SRA Handbook and its overall approach to regulation. It was also at this stage that a new regulatory model, with two distinct strands, was first proposed.  This model sought, on the one hand, to regulate individuals through education and entry standards, on-going competence and ethical behaviours. On the other hand, it sought to regulate firms, with emphasis being on their systems and controls. </description><guid>https://www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/insights/blogs/regulatory-blog/understanding-the-new-sra-principles-and-code-the-long-read</guid></item><item><title>Reach for the StaRs!</title><author>Iain Miller and Jessica Clay</author><link>https://www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/insights/blogs/regulatory-blog/reach-for-the-stars</link><pubDate>Tue, 22 Oct 2019 00:00:00 +0100</pubDate><description>Are we nearly there yet?

As most in the legal profession are now aware, the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) will be launching its new set of Standards and Regulations (known now by many as the “StaRs”) on 25 November 2019.  The StaRs could herald a new era in legal regulation in which there will be a distinct shift in focus, both in terms of what the SRA considers to be its priorities as a regulator (of both individuals and firms), and in what the SRA expects of those it regulates.</description><guid>https://www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/insights/blogs/regulatory-blog/reach-for-the-stars</guid></item><item><title>#MeToo one year on: can we expect regulatory guidance soon?</title><author>Julie Norris</author><link>https://www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/insights/blogs/regulatory-blog/metoo-one-year-on-can-we-expect-regulatory-guidance-soon</link><pubDate>Fri, 19 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0100</pubDate><description>This week marks the first anniversary of the start of #metoo movement. The last 12 months have seen a seemingly unabaiting global conversation about the rising number of reports of sexual harassment, both inside and outside the workplace. Julie Norris and Charlotte Judd discuss sexual harassment in the workplace and firms’ regulatory obligations, calling for better #metoo related guidance from accounting regulators.</description><guid>https://www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/insights/blogs/regulatory-blog/metoo-one-year-on-can-we-expect-regulatory-guidance-soon</guid></item><item><title>SRA Handbook 2019 – Time to start preparing</title><author>Iain Miller</author><link>https://www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/insights/blogs/regulatory-blog/sra-handbook-2019-time-to-start-preparing</link><pubDate>Thu, 14 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0100</pubDate><description>On 14th June 2018 the SRA published the response to its consultation on the new SRA Handbook along with a revised draft of the new SRA Handbook.  The SRA will now seek Legal Services Board approval of the SRA Handbook which is expected to be received in the autumn.  The SRA’s intention is that the new Handbook will come into force in April 2019. It is not anticipated that the LSB’s review process will lead to any major amendments. We have therefore reached the stage where firms can begin to plan their own implementation.  This note is intended to provide an introduction to the main changes.</description><guid>https://www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/insights/blogs/regulatory-blog/sra-handbook-2019-time-to-start-preparing</guid></item><item><title>The ICO’s Regulatory Action Policy: What to expect  in the new GDPR era</title><author>Emily Carter and Fred Allen</author><link>https://www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/insights/blogs/regulatory-blog/the-icos-regulatory-action-policy-what-to-expect-in-the-new-gdpr-era</link><pubDate>Tue, 29 May 2018 00:00:00 +0100</pubDate><description>The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has begun consulting on a new Regulatory Action Policy (“the Policy”). This new policy is intended to provide “direction and focus” for those the ICO regulates, the public and its staff - and therefore demands careful consideration by anyone concerned about regulatory action within this new GDPR era. Critically, the Policy reiterates the ICO’s commitment to a balanced approach to regulation by creating an environment in which data subjects are protected whilst business is able to operate and innovate efficiently:</description><guid>https://www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/insights/blogs/regulatory-blog/the-icos-regulatory-action-policy-what-to-expect-in-the-new-gdpr-era</guid></item><item><title>Press Round-Up: Regulatory and Professional Discipline February 2018 - March 2018</title><author>Shannett Thompson</author><link>https://www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/insights/blogs/regulatory-blog/press-round-up-regulatory-and-professional-discipline-february-2018-march-2018</link><pubDate>Fri, 06 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0100</pubDate><description>Recent news relating to General Medical Council (GMC), Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC), Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC), Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), Bar Standards Board (BSB) and the Financial Reporting Council (FRC).</description><guid>https://www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/insights/blogs/regulatory-blog/press-round-up-regulatory-and-professional-discipline-february-2018-march-2018</guid></item><item><title>Sexual Misconduct and the Duty to Report to the SRA</title><author>Iain Miller</author><link>https://www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/insights/blogs/regulatory-blog/sexual-misconduct-and-the-duty-to-report-to-the-sra</link><pubDate>Tue, 13 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><description>On 12th March 2018 the SRA published a warning notice on the use of Non-Disclosure Agreements (“NDAs”).  I have already blogged on the ethical issues that underpin the SRA’s notice here [link to IWD blog on NDAs] and I am currently working on a more detailed project with others around the use of NDAs that we hope will provide some more assistance to firms.  </description><guid>https://www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/insights/blogs/regulatory-blog/sexual-misconduct-and-the-duty-to-report-to-the-sra</guid></item><item><title>Press Round-Up: Regulatory and Professional Discipline December 2017 - January 2018</title><author>Shannett Thompson</author><link>https://www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/insights/blogs/regulatory-blog/press-round-up-regulatory-and-professional-discipline-december-2017-january-2018</link><pubDate>Mon, 05 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><description>Recent news relating to the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA), General Medical Council (GMC), Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) and Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC).</description><guid>https://www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/insights/blogs/regulatory-blog/press-round-up-regulatory-and-professional-discipline-december-2017-january-2018</guid></item><item><title>Fire Safety: Is a company director also a ‘responsible person’?</title><author>Hannah Eales</author><link>https://www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/insights/blogs/regulatory-blog/fire-safety-is-a-company-director-also-a-responsible-person</link><pubDate>Mon, 05 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><description>Fire Safety is just one of the many issues with which management must concern themselves.  However, unlike a lot of other safety concerns, fire has the potential for large scale and devastating consequences.  </description><guid>https://www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/insights/blogs/regulatory-blog/fire-safety-is-a-company-director-also-a-responsible-person</guid></item><item><title>Discretion and everyday case management: a revision guide from the Court of Appeal</title><author>Laura Vignoles</author><link>https://www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/insights/blogs/regulatory-blog/discretion-and-everyday-case-management-a-revision-guide-from-the-court-of-appeal</link><pubDate>Fri, 26 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><description>Hussain v General Pharmaceutical Council [2018] EWCA Civ 22</description><guid>https://www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/insights/blogs/regulatory-blog/discretion-and-everyday-case-management-a-revision-guide-from-the-court-of-appeal</guid></item><item><title>Has Fire Regulation in our Schools become lax?</title><author>Hannah Eales</author><link>https://www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/insights/blogs/regulatory-blog/has-fire-regulation-in-our-schools-become-lax</link><pubDate>Tue, 02 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><description>In the wake of Dame Judith Hackitt’s interim report, a recent investigation conducted by ITV News Tyne Tees, (‘the investigation’) has found inconsistencies in how regularly schools around the region conduct fire risk assessments.</description><guid>https://www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/insights/blogs/regulatory-blog/has-fire-regulation-in-our-schools-become-lax</guid></item><item><title>High Court success for GMC after Medical Practitioners Tribunal fails to grapple with concerns about Doctor’s evidence</title><author>Guest Author</author><link>https://www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/insights/blogs/regulatory-blog/high-court-success-for-gmc-after-medical-practitioners-tribunal-fails-to-grapple-with-concerns-about-doctors-evidence</link><pubDate>Fri, 29 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><description>General Medical Council (GMC) v Lamming Queen&amp;#39;s Bench Division (Administrative Court), 18 December 2017 [2017] EWHC 3309 (Admin)</description><guid>https://www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/insights/blogs/regulatory-blog/high-court-success-for-gmc-after-medical-practitioners-tribunal-fails-to-grapple-with-concerns-about-doctors-evidence</guid></item></channel></rss>
