June 28 2019

2016: Tracey McDermott, the then acting CEO of the FCA:-

“I’m not saying in 2001 I would have seen a failure. But one of the roles of a regulator is to have the confidence to ask what you think might be stupid questions. This is a big task for a 25-year-old faced with masters of the universe. The people who live and breathe this stuff, who speak in basis points, will say you don’t understand because you are in some ivory tower as a regulator. Making sure FCA people have that resilience is very important.”

26 June 2019: Andrew Bailey (CEO of the FCA) when questioned by the Treasury Select Committee admits that, despite having concerns about the Woodford funds since February 2018 and the various risk warnings it had given, the FCA had been taken by surprise by the wave of redemption requests and their effect on the fund. He admitted that the fund had been guilty of “regulatory arbitrage” and ‘sailing close to the wind”.

The FCA’s Chairman said that the European funds regime had created a “perfect storm” that allowed the Woodford situation to escalate, but that there should have been a more incisive cutting through to the key issues.  You don’t say.

27 June 2019: Mark Carney (Governor of the Bank of England) talking to the Treasury Select Committee about the issues raised by Neil Woodford and his various funds:-

“These funds are built on a lie, which is that you can have daily liquidity for assets that fundamentally aren’t liquid.”

The FCA’s answers do not impress the Committee’s Chair.  “Doesn’t anyone at the FCA actually read the newspapers and listen to what’s going on in the industry?”

Evidently, developing the confidence to ask any questions, let alone stupid ones, or even learning to cut through to the key issues are harder tasks than the FCA thought.  Still, after three years you’d have thought some lessons would have been learnt.  If only this one: curiosity is one of the most underrated but most necessary qualities for a regulator to have.

Photo by Ken Treloar on Unsplash

May 31 2019

The recent decisions by the FCA to fine UBS and Goldman Sachs £27.6 million and £34.3 million for transaction reporting failures going back to November 2007 and HBOS for its failure to inform the regulator of its suspicions that fraud was occurring in its Impaired Assets team – again in 2007 – is a reminder that the failings of long ago still have bite.  All three firms will doubtless be relieved to put these investigations, finally, behind them.  Systems changes will have been made, extensive remediation measures taken, training given and few, if any, of the people involved will still be in the organisations.  Sighs of relief all round.  After all, the past is another country.  They did things differently then.

And yet, 12 years from the events in question to enforcement is a generation, probably two, in City terms.  There will be people now starting their banking careers who were in short trousers when these events were happening.  It will be all too easy for them to think that there is little for them to learn from what went on in these cases.  After all, haven’t all the lessons already been learnt?  They would be wrong.

For those training the next generation, the challenge is to make the lessons to be learnt from these past cases real for people working today – if the same dismal cycle is not to be repeated in future.  Perhaps too the FCA might realise that the pursuit of perfection in their investigations risks making their ultimate outcomes little more than historical accounts of past misdeeds rather than a quick sharp reminder to those involved and their contemporaries of the perils of not taking their obligations seriously.  Delaying justice for too long risks not just denying it but blunting its wider impact.

Photo by DAVIDCOHEN on Unsplash

April 30 2019

The recent decision of the Solicitors’ Regulatory Authority to strike off Emily Scott, a junior solicitor, for being involved in misconduct while a trainee, only belatedly raising her concerns as a whistleblower after she left, raises, albeit tangentially, the difficult question of when – or if – it is ever right to discipline an employee for misconduct if they are also a whistleblower about that misconduct.

In this case, Ms Scott felt unable to report clients being defrauded by her firm while she was a trainee.  She was involved in perpetrating the frauds on the instructions of the partners, the Disciplinary Tribunal finding her conduct to have been “deliberate, calculated and repeated”.  It was only after she had left, some two years after the conduct in question, that she reported the fraud to the SRA who then took action against the partners of her firm and, controversially, her.  The Tribunal reached its decision on Ms Scott despite accepting that she had been young, a trainee and had been “deceived, pressured, bullied and manipulated” by the partners into both carrying out the fraud and covering it up.  The fact that she did not use the confidential route open to her by reporting the matter to the SRA was a factor, as was the fact that part of the conduct involved misleading the regulator when it sought answers.  

Ms Scott feels that she has been punished for – eventually – doing the right thing, with the Tribunal refusing to accept her mitigation, even while expressing sympathy for her.  It is easy to feel sorry for her: in her first job, anxious to impress, worried about her prospects if she refused or left and feeling bullied.  In such circumstances, it is not hard to see how someone can justify to themselves what they are doing and convince themselves that they are still an honest person despite doing dishonest things.  

Still, the SRA took the view that a solicitor, even a trainee one, is rightly held to a very high standard and there can be no excuse for dishonesty.  Our system of justice depends on its practitioners being utterly trustworthy.  

Will such a decision nonetheless lead to unintended consequences?  Misconduct is often perpetrated by the most junior employees being made to do something wrong by superiors who seek to keep their hands clean.  So it will often be those most involved who have the best knowledge of misconduct which should be reported and stopped.  If their own careers will be lost – as Ms Scott’s has been – will this encourage those with the relevant knowledge to speak up?  The SRA is, understandably, reviewing its rules in light of this case in order to ensure that it gets that balance right.  

Ms Scott was not retaliated against by her employers for being a whistleblower.  She was disciplined by a regulatory authority, which has different and wider concerns.  Nonetheless, all employers will likely come across whistleblowers who have themselves been involved in bad behaviour and who may seek to protect themselves from the consequences of such bad behaviour by blowing the whistle, sometimes at a late stage when an investigation has already started – or is about to.  Ensuring that a whistleblower is not retaliated for speaking up but is not also given a free pass against being disciplined for misconduct requires the most careful of judgments.

But the moral – however harsh it may seem – is that, ultimately, a professional – or someone aspiring to be one – is responsible for their own actions, that they need to do the right thing even if this prejudices their personal position and that acting dishonestly but saying to yourself “I’m not a dishonest person” may be comforting but is still a dangerous self-deception.  It is our actions that make us what we are.

Similar considerations arose in the case of Dr Bawa-Garba, a paediatrician convicted of manslaughter over the death of a young child from sepsis, suspended from practice, then struck off and recently reinstated.  There are, however, some obvious differences between the two cases:-

1. The doctor was open about – and admitted – her mistakes immediately and was convicted in court.  The initial medical disciplinary panel felt, however, that it was not just her mistakes which led to the child’s death and that these wider failures were a reason why her additional punishment should be suspension, during which she could do the necessary training to learn from those mistakes and improve her professional competence.
2. It was the General Medical Council which sought to strike her off on the basis that her standards as a doctor were so far below those to be expected that she should not be allowed to practise.
3. The concern within the medical community at this decision was that this would lead to the wrong consequences, both for doctors and patients.  Criminalising individual mistakes would be more likely to lead to cover ups and a failure to learn from problems.  It would have a chilling effect on health professionals’ willingness to be candid about errors and thereby learn what to do better next time.  There was also significant concern that the wider failings which had been identified – lack of staff, poor supervision, inadequate resources, poor note-keeping by others – were being ignored in favour of placing the blame, unfairly, all on one individual.  
4. Most obviously, the consequences of the wrongful behaviour were much more serious in the doctor’s case than in Ms Scott’s.  Yet it is Ms Scott who has lost her career and the doctor who will continue to practice.

Unfair?  Superficially maybe.  Is gross incompetence in a doctor less bad than dishonesty in a lawyer? Whatever the doctor’s failings, she was not dishonest; indeed, her very openness about her failings made it easier for her to be convicted and disciplined.  A lack of knowledge or competence is something which is capable of being remedied.  

Whereas integrity and honesty and the courage to say no when asked to do the wrong thing go to the heart of what it means to be a lawyer.  If they are missing or capable of being so easily subverted, what else is there?  

And while the work culture in which a person operates matters, often significantly, and frequently needs improving, it should never be an excuse for behaving without integrity.

Photo by Vladislav Babienko on Unsplash