Written by SRA transparency · Complaints and misconduct · England & Wales
The SRA is not covered by the Freedom of Information Act in the ordinary way, but it operates its own Transparency Code and publishes significant material about how it investigates concerns. That transparency is useful only if readers understand the limits: an information request may explain process, delegation and operational data, but it does not prove whether any individual report was handled correctly.
Publication snapshot
- The SRA says its Transparency Code is applied in a similar way to the Freedom of Information Act, although the SRA itself is not covered by FOIA.
- The SRA publishes guidance on how reports are assessed, including an Assessment Threshold Test for deciding whether to investigate.
- The SRA’s decision-making page explains who can make regulatory decisions and how decision responsibilities are delegated.
- Response-specific statistics should be checked against the original SRA disclosure before being presented as verified public data.
The core point: transparency must be turned into route discipline
A request for information about the Solicitors Regulation Authority can reveal useful material about how reports are handled, who makes decisions, what guidance is applied, and how the public can check regulatory information. But the value of that material depends on how it is used.
The SRA is a public-interest regulator. It is not a general complaints service for every poor experience with a solicitor. That distinction is critical. Some concerns belong with the SRA because they may involve serious breach, public risk, dishonesty, client money, integrity, conflicts or systemic risk. Other concerns may be service complaints for the Legal Ombudsman, negligence claims for legal advice, data-protection issues for a SAR/ICO route, or private disputes requiring another forum.
The practical value of transparency is therefore not simply knowing that the SRA has a process. It is knowing how to frame the concern so that the right body is asked the right question.
The SRA Transparency Code: open by default, but not without limits
The supplied draft correctly identifies an important point: the SRA’s own Transparency Code states that the SRA is not covered by the Freedom of Information Act, but applies its own code because it says it believes in being as open as possible about what it does.
That matters for public accountability. It gives members of the public, complainants, journalists, legal professionals and campaigners a route to ask for recorded information that is not already available through the SRA’s publication scheme.
However, the code is not a blank cheque. The SRA does not have to create information to satisfy a request. It may refuse or limit disclosure where restrictions apply. It must also balance transparency with personal data, ongoing regulatory functions, confidentiality, cost and proportionality.
The accountability lesson
An information request is strongest when it asks for recorded information that can actually be disclosed. It is weaker when it asks the regulator to create explanations, comment on live cases, or supply personal or investigation-sensitive material.
How reports are assessed: the threshold question
The SRA’s public guidance explains that when it receives a report, it assesses whether the information raises a potential breach, whether the alleged breach is serious enough to justify regulatory action if proved, and whether the alleged breach is capable of proof.
This is where many reports fail. A person may have a serious grievance, but the SRA may still decide that the issue is poor service, a civil dispute, a dispute about outcome, or a matter better handled elsewhere unless there is evidence of public-interest regulatory risk.
Potential breach
Does the report identify a possible breach of SRA standards or requirements, rather than only dissatisfaction with service or outcome?
Sufficient seriousness
If proved, would the concern be serious enough to justify regulatory action in the public interest?
Capable of proof
Can the concern realistically be evidenced through documents, accounts, correspondence, witness evidence, admissions or other material?
The lesson is practical. A report should not simply say that a solicitor acted unfairly. It should identify the standard engaged, the conduct alleged, the evidence relied on, and why the concern is regulatory rather than only service-related.
Who makes decisions: delegation matters
The SRA publishes information about who can make regulatory decisions. Its decision-making page, formerly described as the Schedule of Delegations, explains which people or roles are authorised to make particular regulatory decisions and what responsibilities attach to them.
That structure matters because regulatory accountability is not only about outcomes. It is also about whether the right decision-maker applied the right test at the right stage, with the right evidence and reasons.
Assessment decisions
The key question is whether the report crosses the SRA’s threshold for investigation.
Investigation decisions
The key question is whether further regulatory action is justified by the evidence and public-interest risk.
Outcome decisions
The key question is whether the decision, sanction, closure or referral is within the regulator’s powers and properly reasoned.
Transparency decisions
The key question is whether recorded information can be disclosed, withheld, redacted or refused under the Transparency Code.
Numbers are useful, but they need source discipline
The supplied draft says the SRA response reported 11,916 reports of potential misconduct between 5 June 2023 and 4 June 2024, identified five leading categories of report, and stated that 84% of reports were assessed within a two-month target during a June 2023 to May 2024 period.
Those figures may be useful, but they should be published carefully. They appear to come from a particular response to a particular request. Without the original response, it is not safe to treat them as independently verified public statistics or to infer more than they show.
Stated in the supplied draft as reports of potential misconduct for the specified 12-month period. Requires the original SRA response before publication as a verified figure.
Stated in the supplied draft as the SRA’s assessment aim. Should be checked against the response and any current SRA operational material.
Stated in the supplied draft as assessed within the target period. Requires source checking before being used as a performance claim.
Good accountability work separates three things: official public guidance, response-specific disclosure, and interpretation. Mixing them together can make an otherwise useful article vulnerable to challenge.
Public tools: checking status and regulatory records
The SRA maintains public tools that help consumers and professionals check regulated status and published regulatory outcomes. The Solicitors Register is described by the SRA as the definitive impartial source of information about the law firms and people it regulates. The solicitor-record search also allows users to search for certain published regulatory decisions.
These tools are useful, but they have limits. The SRA notes that not all regulatory decisions are published and that decisions generally remain on the website for a defined period. A clean search result should not automatically be treated as proof that there has never been a concern, complaint or unpublished regulatory issue.
Solicitors Register
Use it to check regulated individuals and firms, status, basic regulatory identity and authorised practice information.
Solicitor record check
Use it to search for published regulatory decisions, while remembering that the website may not give the complete regulatory picture.
Source anchors
These anchors support the article’s process and accountability framework. They do not verify the specific figures attributed to the information request unless the original SRA response is supplied.
- SRA Transparency Code — SRA approach to recorded-information requests and limits on disclosure.
- SRA: investigating concerns — public guide to what happens after concerns are reported.
- SRA: decisions to investigate concerns — guidance including the Assessment Threshold Test.
- SRA: who can make decisions — regulatory decision-making and delegation structure.
- SRA fee policy — current fee policy and funding material.
- Solicitors Register — public register for SRA-regulated individuals and firms.
- Check a solicitor’s record — search tool for published regulatory decisions.
Closing point
The SRA’s transparency material can help the public understand how reports move through the system. It can also help complainants avoid a common mistake: sending a broad grievance where the regulator needs a focused, evidence-led report capable of meeting a regulatory threshold.
The strongest use of transparency is not to assume failure. It is to test process. What was reported? What standard was engaged? What evidence supported the concern? Who had authority to decide? What reason was given? What route remains?
That is the Legal Lens point: transparency becomes useful when it turns frustration into structure.
SRA reports and transparency requests
Get a free written assessment before sending an SRA report, transparency request or public accountability article
Legal Lens can help structure the issue before it is sent, escalated or published. The assessment can separate regulatory misconduct, poor service, data-protection issues, evidence gaps, route errors and publication risk.
Independent Legal Lens consultancy. Legal Lens is not a regulated solicitors’ firm. A preliminary assessment is not a substitute for regulated legal advice where that is needed.