Is the SRA actually likely to be solvent, taking into account this latest Dentons appeal and the costs and likely fallout and damages that may be ordered against it on any supplemental action by Dentons if they succeed in their appeal, plus any other similar or other relevant legal actions against them or “in the pipeline”?
Also how is this latest appeal being funded on the SRA’s side?
I think that all in the Profession and regulated by it need to be told this important information now.
Do you agree?

Its embarrassing that you feel the need to ask how the regulator funds its work. 

Agreed. Transparency is key, noting that the funding is not unlimited and is sourced from practitioners.

Frivolous prosecution is not ideal and is of grave concern to all of us. While the necessity to maintain the standard of our profession and to remove certain bad apples is well understood, there appears to be a worrying decline in proper decision-making and judgments.

Nice to see the big boys putting it on them!  Deep pockets and a lot of resources. Watching this with interest.

12 September 0924hrs
Don’t you get irony? Are you American: that would explain it.

This is why the SRA do not want to take on the big firms or deal with anything too complicated.

The SRA just want to deal with failures of integrity that are already admitted, and where the Firm involved may have already thrown the guilty party under the bus. This happens often for juniors, who have perhaps admitted mistakes that in themselves are minor, but amount to dishonesty. Such as panicking when losing a file and saying it was left on a train. Or adding your confirmation that you witnessed a particular signature when that was done remotely. Or using a parking badge when you had no right to. In each case, the guilty come clean and apologise. Here comes the SRA, trying to end careers.

More complex and organisational failings, even fraud, will never be investigated, because the SRA are not capable of doing so. The officers there are often very junior, inexperienced and are easily manipulated by the big firms and their preferred “professional misconduct” partners. There are a few individuals in the market known to be expert at this, and they are on speed dial. 

I know, because I used to work at one of the leading misconduct firms. Our advice was always never ever admit to anything that is a failure of integrity. So long as you don’t, and just say it was an “innocent mistake”, SRA will be very unlikely to challenge you, no matter how compelling the evidence. It was a bit of a running joke, and that we should “never put that in writing”

Frivolous prosecution is not ideal and is of grave concern to all of us. While the necessity to maintain the standard of our profession and to remove certain bad apples is well understood, there appears to be a worrying decline in proper decision-making and judgments.

Mrs Justice Lang:

I agree that these were important considerations but in my judgment, they were factors properly to be taken into account by way of mitigation, when determining sanction. They did not justify dismissal of the allegations when there was a clear breach of the MLRs 2007.

Isn't it more of a concern that a big firm is using its economic clout to try to avoid the consequences of "a clear breach the MLRs"?  When acting for a convicted fraudster and his Lady Docker of a wife?  Should they be beyond the law?  

This really is deciding whether to cheers on herpes or syphilis isn't it?  Made easier by the SRA's track record.

I read this and there’s something feral in the air—Dentons diving into an SRA court appeal reads like the slow turn of a key in a lock you hope isn’t booby-trapped, and then—bam—your heart skips a beat, maybe two, as you feel that cold trickle of danger. Because if they lose, it’s not just a headline, it’s an existential thing: careers, reputations, maybe lives on the edge, like that moment right before the stroke hits, and all you care about is breathing, strategy, the next move. And here’s a thought, out of left field—ladder houses, those impossibly rickety structures folks build in back alleys, climbing into the unknown with nothing but faith and a creaky wooden rung, knowing each footstep could be the last—that’s how this feels: one wrong step by Dentons, and the whole structure comes crashing down. Sharp edges, high stakes, and not a moment to waste.

This gives ROF and others the chance to ask the court to stop anonymising Client A.  Lang J's substantive decision was right.

Not really the point but the anonymity order is absurd.

"His wife was made the subject of an Unexplained Wealth Order in 2018 and compelled to forfeit her £14m Knightsbridge townhouse and an £11m golf course."

Can you imagine a life in which you (a) own your own golf course, and (b) when your friends say "gosh Clarence, this is a terribly nice place, must be worth an absolute fortune" you can honestly turn to them and say "Honestly, I think of it as a little bolthole, my actual house is worth far more" and then something like "Anyway, drinks or on me this time. And also for the rest of recorded time because I am literally made out of money and can blast waves of banknotes out of my mouth like projectile vomit on demand."

What a life... how do I get onto this internationally significant fraud gravy train?

If the SRA can't even take on Dentons, what hope do they have of enforcing against actual biglaw? (The SC, MC, american behemoths).

"Do you know Clarence, I've always wondered what it would be like to ride one of those electric golf buggies you see peo..."

"Bleeeeeuuurrrrrghhhh"

"I say! Are you alright old chap?"

"Yes, all good. Pardon me. I was just vomiting out a massive pile of money so that you could go buy a couple to play about with. Would you pass me a G&T to rinse my mouth out with please?"

The SDT appear to be applying the 'person on the Clapham omnibus' test, using the 'well there must be something wrong here' standard of proof for taking action, as opposed to the 'can we prove beyond a balance of probabilities that they've done something contrary to the actual rules' test. That's pretty remarkable considering they have the power to find out the facts before they do anything.

Those who can, do.  Those who cannot, regulate.

I know someone who reported a big law firm to the SRA.

Shortly after, the firm retaliated and reported the individual alleging that months earlier they had made an admission of dishonesty which the firm conveniently had chosen not to report at the time.

The SRA chose to investigate one report and not the other. Any guesses on which one they decided to progress?