Written by The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), responsible for overseeing solicitors across England and Wales, now faces a landmark judicial review following years of criticism over alleged regulatory failings. The joint action, led by John Robertson and supported by advocacy group Legal Lens, accuses the SRA of systemic shortcomings that have left victims of professional misconduct without effective recourse.
This challenge reflects growing frustration with the SRA’s perceived inability to regulate effectively, frustrations that were brought to light during Justice Committee hearings in late 2023.
Rewinding to 2023: Parliamentary Scrutiny of the SRA
During Justice Committee hearings in November and December 2023, the SRA faced significant parliamentary scrutiny. Anna Bradley, Chair of the SRA, defended the organisation’s regulatory framework, describing it as “fundamentally fit for purpose.” However, MPs and legal experts raised concerns about its capacity to address critical challenges such as anti-money laundering (AML), workplace misconduct, and the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on legal services.
James Daly MP, a practising solicitor, highlighted the fallout from the Axiom Ince scandal, in which £66 million was allegedly misappropriated from client accounts. This case became emblematic of regulatory gaps. Daly stated, “There’s a breakdown in regulation, quite clearly,” pointing to the increased levies imposed on compliant solicitors to replenish the compensation fund as an unjust consequence of the SRA’s oversight failings.
A Crisis of Confidence: The Axiom Ince Fallout
The Axiom Ince scandal left many questioning the SRA’s regulatory effectiveness. Critics argue that lapses in oversight enabled the large-scale misappropriation of funds, while its aftermath placed financial burdens on smaller firms. Nick Emmerson, President of the Law Society, captured the profession’s frustration during the hearings: “Not a penny should go into that fund until we know what happened and that it won’t happen again”.
The SRA maintains that the complexities of cases like Axiom Ince often fall outside immediate regulatory control. However, its critics see this as indicative of deeper systemic issues that must be addressed.
The Judicial Review: A Quest for Accountability
The judicial review, led by Robertson and his co-claimants, accuses the SRA of irrational decision-making that meets the threshold of Wednesbury unreasonableness. The claimants allege:
- Regulatory Inaction: The SRA has failed to uphold statutory duties, leaving victims of misconduct without adequate redress.
- Procedural Barriers: Victims of misconduct face undue hurdles in seeking justice.
- Oversight Failures: The regulator has struggled to adapt its framework to emerging risks such as fraud, workplace misconduct, and AI.
Robertson stated: “This isn’t just about holding the SRA accountable. It’s about ensuring the regulator works for everyone—solicitors, clients, and the wider public”.
A Call for Participation
Legal Lens has invited individuals and businesses harmed by the SRA’s alleged failings to join the judicial review. To participate, claimants must demonstrate direct harm caused by regulatory inaction or decisions.
For more information and to register interest, visit the Legal Lens Judicial Review page. Robertson emphasised, “This is a chance to restore trust and demand the accountability our profession and the public deserve.”
The Road Ahead: Reform or Repetition?
As the courts prepare to hear the case, the stakes are high for the SRA and the legal profession it regulates. Success in this judicial review could compel significant reform, improving regulatory oversight and restoring public confidence.
Anna Bradley has reiterated the SRA’s commitment to upholding professional standards, but critics argue that promises of improvement have not materialised. James Daly MP summed up the sentiment in 2023: “There needs to be clear improvement, but it feels like we’re waiting for something that’s not coming”.
For those who believe in a better regulatory framework, the judicial review offers a chance to demand reform. Visit Legal Lens to join this pivotal effort.
Disclaimer:
This article is based on publicly available evidence and testimony from Justice Committee hearings and related legal documents. It does not constitute legal advice or an endorsement of any party’s claims.