SRA Investigations and SDT proceedings

SRA investigations and disciplinary proceedings can have serious consequences for solicitors and law firms. They can affect professional reputations, business plans and career progression, and are often highly stressful for those involved. Whether an investigation remains confidential or becomes public, it is important that the process is navigated carefully from the outset.

We act for individuals and firms at every stage of the regulatory process, from the early stages of an SRA investigation through to proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. We strongly encourage solicitors facing regulatory concerns to seek specialist advice as early as possible, as prompt representation can often make a significant difference to the eventual outcome.

We act for individuals and firms. Our clients range from partners in international firms to junior solicitors at the start of their career, and from sole practitioners to large commercial firms. All of our clients receive the same high level of care and dedication to their cases.

If you are an individual or the manager of a firm facing any of the following stages of an SRA proceeding we encourage you to call us to find out how we can help:

• Internal firm investigations relating to a Solicitor’s conduct

• Self reports to the SRA

• SRA letters informing a regulated person or firm that the SRA intends to commence an investigation

• Service of a production notice (also known as a “Section 44B notice”)

• SRA requests to a solicitor to attend a recorded interview

• Service of an SRA notice recommending a disciplinary sanction or a referral to the SDT.

• SRA applications for section 43 orders restricting the ability of non-solicitors to be employed by SRA regulated firms

• A decision to refer a solicitor to the SDT

• Service of the rule 12 statement of allegations in SDT proceedings.

• Consideration of an agreed outcome

• Preparation of a case for hearing before the SDT

• Applications to vary or remove practising conditions imposed by the SDT

• Appeals against adverse SDT decisions

During an investigation by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, the SRA may ask a solicitor to attend an SRA interview (which is also known as a “regulatory interview”).

A request to attend an SRA interview should be taken seriously and treated with great care. It is often a sign that the SRA has discovered matters of concern during an investigation, and wishes to obtain a record of the solicitor’s explanation for what has happened before taking disciplinary proceedings.

In practice the SRA makes the request to attend an interview by email. The email will specify a date and time for the interview, and the names of two Forensic Investigation Officers who will attend the interview. It will also state that the interview will be recorded and that a copy of the recording will be provided to the solicitor. The email may also provide a summary of the main issues which the SRA wish to discuss during the interview and state that a bundle of documents will be supplied to the solicitor in advance of the interview.

The interview is normally held at the solicitor’s office, but it is open to the solicitor to ask the SRA to change the venue, or the date and time of the interview.

After the interview has concluded the SRA will decide whether to close its file with no further action, or take disciplinary proceedings against the solicitor. If a decision is made to take disciplinary proceedings, the FI Officer with daily conduct of the case will prepare a Forensic Investigation Report setting out the matters of concern, and the solicitor’s explanation for those matters. The FI Report will exhibit a transcript of the recorded interview and the documents obtained during the SRA investigation. It often takes between three and six months for the SRA to prepare the FI Report, and the FI report, the transcript and the other documents will then be relied on by the SRA as their evidence in the subsequent disciplinary proceedings.

Some points to note on SRA interviews:

• The solicitor is under a duty to co-operate, and a refusal to attend an interview will lead to a charge that the solicitor has failed to co-operate, in breach of paragraphs 7.3 and 7.4 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors. It could also lead to an application to the High Court under section 44BA(1) of the Solicitors Act 1974 for an order requiring the solicitor to provide an explanation for matters of concern and to pay the costs of the application.

• The main purpose of an interview is to ask a solicitor for their explanation for the content of documents or matters of concern discovered during the investigation.

• It is open to the solicitor to ask the SRA in advance of the interview to provide a summary of the topics which will be covered during an interview, and copies of any documents which the SRA intends to rely on during the interview, if the SRA does not voluntarily provide that information and those documents in advance.

• If a solicitor is provided with a bundle in advance, the solicitor should check the bundle carefully to see if further documents are required in order to ensure the available documents provide a balanced impression of what happened.

• The solicitor is entitled to be represented during the interview. It often assists the solicitor to be represented because it is easier for a representative to ensure that the FI Officer’s questions are restricted to requests for explanations and do not extend to requests to admit allegations.

• The High Court case of Carter Ruck v SRA provides that, when the SRA serves a section 44B notice, the SRA is not entitled to information protected by legal professional privilege ( unless the client has waived the LPP). The same principle applies to information sought by the SRA during interviews (even if a section 44B notice has not been served). The SRA cannot obtain privileged information during the interview unless the client has waived the privilege.

• If a solicitor is unable to provide a full explanation without disclosing privileged information, the solicitor should point that out during the interview.

• The solicitor is entitled to ask for and take short breaks during the course of the interview.

• It is common for solicitors to guess what happened if they cannot recollect what happened. If a solicitor does not know the answer to a question, or needs to check documents in order to recollect what happened, the solicitor should say so (and should not instead guess or provide an imprecise answer).

The Solicitors Regulation Authority often makes allegations of lack of integrity in proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal.

The test for lack of integrity was considered by the Court of Appeal in the case of Wingate and Evans v SRA [2018] EWCA civ 366. In Wingate and Evans Jackson LJ said at [95]-[103]:

“Integrity is a useful shorthand to express the higher standards which society expects from a professional person and which the profession expects from their own members…

It is not possible to formulate an all-purpose, comprehensive definition of integrity…the broad contours of what integrity means, at least in the context of professional conduct , are now becoming clearer...

Integrity connotes adherence to the ethical standards of one’s own profession…

The duty to act with integrity applies not only to what professional persons say, but also to what they do…

Neither courts nor professional tribunals must set unrealistically high standards…

The duty of integrity does not require professionals to be paragons of virtue…

A professional disciplinary tribunal has specialist knowledge of the profession to which the respondent belongs and of the ethical standards of the profession. Accordingly such a body is well placed to identify want of integrity”

When a solicitor faces an allegation of lack of integrity it is important to bear in mind that the test for lack of integrity includes a subjective element. The Tribunal applies an objective standard after taking account of the solicitor’s state of mind.

That has been confirmed by the Tribunal in a 2015 case (SDT case no 11295), by the High Court in a 2019 case (SRA v Zivancevic [2019] EWHC 1950 ) and by the Court of Appeal in Wingate & Evans.

For that reason, any solicitor defending an allegation of lack of integrity needs to ensure that the tribunal has detailed evidence on their state of mind at the time of the incident.

The solicitors at Russell-Cooke have successfully defended a number of cases in which the SRA has alleged a lack of integrity. The following are examples of recent cases:

In the 2024 SDT case of SRA v L & others, a firm was unable to pay all its debts as they fell due and had to negotiate arrangements with creditors. That was partly attributable to the covid epidemic. The SRA alleged that the failure to pay certain sums due to a third party as they fell due meant that the partners lacked integrity. Susanna Heley acted for two of the partners and defended the case on the basis that their clients had taken all reasonable steps available to them to try to resolve the financial problems. The Tribunal agreed and dismissed the SRA’s allegations of lack of integrity.

In the 2024 SDT case of SRA v X (a solicitor), a partner loaned money to a client who was in financial difficulty. He advised the client to take independent legal advice but did not insist that they should do so. The SRA alleged that the failure to ensure the client took independent legal advice meant that there was a significant risk of a conflict of interest and that the partner lacked integrity. Nigel West defended the lack of integrity allegation. The fact that the solicitor advised the client to take legal advice was an indicator that the solicitor was trying to comply with his professional obligations and demonstrated that he did not lack integrity. The Tribunal agreed and dismissed the allegation of lack of integrity.

In the 2025 SDT case of SRA v Y (a solicitor) & others, two partners sold their solicitors practice to another solicitor. After the sale, the purchaser breached the SRA Accounts Rules and a number of the professional rules including the rules in relation to supervision of junior employees. The SRA took proceedings against the sellers alleging that they lacked integrity as they had reasonable grounds to suspect that there would be a lack of supervision after the sale. Nigel West acted for the sellers, who defended the case on the basis that they did not believe at the time of the sale that there would be a lack of supervision. The Tribunal agreed and dismissed the allegations against the sellers.

If the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal has imposed Practising Conditions on a Solicitor, the Solicitor will have to make an application to the SDT in order to vary or remove the Practising Conditions.

The procedure

The main procedural rules relating to an application to remove or vary Practising Conditions are set out in rule 18 of the Solicitors (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules 2019. By rule 18, the application must be made on the Tribunal’s prescribed form (which is available on the SDT’s website) and supported by a witness statement setting out the facts and matters supporting the application and exhibiting any documents the solicitor wishes to rely on. The Law Society, acting via the SRA, must be a respondent. The case number for the application is the case number of the proceedings in which the Practising Conditions were imposed.

The application form, the witness statement and supporting documents are sent to the Tribunal and served on the SRA. On receipt of the application the Tribunal office will issue directions. The directions normally require the SRA to serve its response within 28 days and list the case for hearing.

The SRA is likely to oppose the application or take a neutral stance.

The hearing takes place before three Tribunal members. The burden of proof is on the solicitor (as the solicitor is the applicant) and the standard of proof is the civil standard. The solicitor should attend the hearing and will normally give oral evidence on the matters set out in the witness statement. The Tribunal will announce its decision on the day, at the end of the hearing, and will then prepare a detailed written judgment which is normally sent to the parties about six weeks after the hearing. In practice, the solicitor is normally ordered to pay the SRA’s costs of the hearing.

The factors the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal takes into account when deciding whether to vary or remove a solicitors Practising Conditions

On an application by a solicitor to vary or remove a Solicitor’s Practising Conditions, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal will consider whether it is necessary or appropriate to protect the public or the reputation of the profession by the continued imposition of practising conditions (see Manak v SRA [2018] EWHC 1958 (Admin) at [63] and Iwezulu v SRA, SDT case 12057-2020 at [21]).

Factors the Tribunal will take into account include:

• insight into the failings which led to the imposition of the Practising Conditions;

• work experience gained;

• training courses attended;

• general rehabilitation since the original order imposing the Practising Conditions;

• any concerns raised by the SRA on regulatory conduct since the original order;

• whether the solicitor has paid any adverse costs orders made at the original hearing.

The time which has elapsed since the original order is also taken into account. An early application could be dismissed on the basis there has been insufficient time for rehabilitation. The question as to how much time should elapse before the application is made will vary depending on the circumstances of the case and the reasons for imposing the Solicitor’s Practising Conditions.

It is always helpful to obtain character references from other solicitors who have worked with the solicitor since the Practising Conditions were imposed.

Costs

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal has a wide discretion on costs. In practice, if an application to vary or remove Practising Conditions fails, the solicitor will be ordered to pay the costs. However the solicitor is also likely to be ordered to pay the SRA’s costs if the application succeeds - even if the SRA has opposed the application - on the grounds that the SRA is expected to attend the hearing and critically comment on the application for the benefit of the Tribunal. In summary, a solicitor making an application should be prepared to pay the SRA’s costs.