Written by Employees who turn to Employment Tribunals (ETs) for justice often find the scales tipped against them before a hearing even begins. Over decades, some solicitors in the UK – especially those defending employers – have perfected ways to skirt the law and undermine the tribunal process. Through procedural tricks, gag orders, deliberate delays and conflicts of interest, these practitioners manipulate supposedly impartial proceedings to the detriment of vulnerable claimants. Meanwhile, the very watchdog meant to police the profession – the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) – stands accused of being asleep at the wheel. As one commentator bluntly observed, “the SRA is a total waste of time,” given its unwillingness to enforce meaningful consequences on rule-breaking lawyers . This article takes an unflinching look at historic and ongoing misconduct by solicitors in employment cases, and delivers a systemic critique of the SRA’s failure to hold bad actors accountable.
A Systemic Problem in Employment Tribunals
Employment Tribunals were created to offer an accessible forum for workplace justice. Yet in practice, unscrupulous solicitors have turned ETs into minefields for ordinary workers. The imbalance of power is stark: employers often arrive armed with seasoned legal teams, while many employees struggle without representation. This asymmetry is routinely exploited. Companies and their lawyers overwhelm unrepresented claimants with technical procedures and legal jargon, leveraging superior resources to gain the upper hand . In fact, claims with merit can be struck out on technicalities simply because the claimant – lacking a lawyer – cannot match the tactical onslaught from the employer’s side . The result is a perversion of justice: procedural wins for those who play dirty, and devastating losses for individuals seeking redress.
Misconduct by solicitors in the ET system is not a new phenomenon; it has historical roots and continues today. Over the years, tribunals have occasionally cried foul about lawyers’ behaviour, but meaningful penalties are rare. The ET’s cost and penalty regime is so lenient that it effectively invites abuse. Tribunals can, in theory, sanction egregious misconduct with a costs order, yet such orders are exceptional. Only in extreme cases will a tribunal punish a party’s solicitor for unreasonable conduct – for example, when a former law firm partner pursued vexatious claims, the Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld a rare £210,000 costs order against him for his “unreasonable” conduct . But these instances are the outliers. Far more commonly, solicitors get away with sharp practice in ETs because neither the tribunal nor the regulator stops them. The following sections examine the key tactics corrupt solicitors use to game the system, and how these tactics have been allowed to fester, largely unchecked.
Underhanded Tactics: How Solicitors Skirt the Law
Procedural Abuse and Legal Gamesmanship
One hallmark of unethical solicitors is procedural abuse – exploiting the tribunal’s procedures and informality to ambush or overwhelm opponents. This can begin from the moment a claim is filed. High-powered legal teams often inundate claimants with technical demands and motions intended not to clarify the case, but to trip them up. For instance, companies frequently seek to have claims struck out at preliminary stages on legal technicalities (under Rule 37 of the ET Rules) rather than ever addressing the merits . These strike-out applications, while legally permissible, are used as a strategic weapon: they can end a case before inconvenient evidence (like internal emails or documents) ever sees daylight . The motivation is clear – by playing procedural hardball, an employer’s solicitor can shield their client from public accountability and costly payouts, all by derailing the case on technical grounds.
When outright dismissal of a claim isn’t possible, the next tactic is to make the process as convoluted and punishing as imaginable for the claimant. Lawyers have been known to unleash last-minute evidence dumps, file crucial documents at the eleventh hour, or sandbag claimants with massive bundles of paperwork. As one analysis notes, represented parties apply “procedural tactics, including late submissions and the calculated use of document overload, to unsettle [litigants in person]” – in other words, drowning unrepresented claimants in paper . It is not unusual for an employer’s solicitor to deliver hundreds of pages of documents or lengthy legal arguments just days (or hours) before a hearing, knowing the unrepresented worker will struggle to respond under such time pressure . This “document overload” is a deliberate ploy: the sheer volume and complexity of material can confuse and fatigue the claimant, increasing the chance they’ll miss a crucial point or fail to counter a key piece of evidence .
Inside the tribunal room, the gamesmanship continues. Aggressive advocacy crosses into intimidation when solicitors leverage their familiarity with tribunal dynamics to throw claimants off balance. They might invoke arcane legal principles or procedural rules at whim, fully aware the layperson on the other side has no context to respond. Some advocates even speak at an unnaturally rapid pace or use excessive legal jargon precisely to bewilder the opposing party. As one veteran observer noted, experienced representatives “employ subtle tactics, such as invoking complex legal principles or speaking at an accelerated pace, to throw an unrepresented claimant off balance” . The goal is not mere persuasion – it’s to exploit the claimant’s lack of legal training, making them feel out of their depth and more likely to falter. All of this amounts to a cynical abuse of the adversarial system: bending procedural rules and courtroom conduct not in pursuit of truth, but to bully the weaker side into submission.
Strategic Delay Tactics
“Delay, delay, delay” – this cynical mantra often defines the defence strategy in employment cases. Dragging out a tribunal case is not just procrastination; it’s a calculated war of attrition. Lawyers know that time is on the side of the deeper pockets. As an employment litigator quipped, delay seems to be “the standard playbook” for lawyers of employer-clients: “Let’s ask for an extension, then a second, and then a third”; “let’s keep promising document productions and only comply when threatened by a court order” . By repeatedly stalling – requesting adjournments, filing needless interlocutory appeals, or “losing” key evidence until later – unscrupulous solicitors aim to wear down the claimant. Each delay means more legal costs, more emotional strain, and more time before any potential payout. Given that companies usually have far greater resources (and often insurance coverage for legal fees), they can afford to play the long game, whereas an individual worker may be financially and emotionally exhausted by protracted proceedings .
These strategic delays are especially effective in employment disputes because the evidence and witnesses are typically under the employer’s control. Solicitors can slow-walk the disclosure of internal emails or records, knowing the claimant cannot obtain them otherwise. It’s not uncommon for critical documents to “trickle in slowly” – material that the employer’s side has long gathered but withholds to the last minute . Each incremental disclosure can necessitate a new preparatory step or even another hearing, further drawing out the timeline. In the meantime, memories fade and witnesses move on, undermining the claimant’s case. One UK tribunal user noted that delaying tactics included failing to produce documents and seeking unnecessary adjournments – all to “delay proceedings and cause [the claimant] to incur further costs” . The cumulative effect of these delays is deeply corrosive to justice. By the time an employee finally gets a full hearing (if they last that long), they may have endured years of stress and expense. Many understandably lose hope and settle for a pittance or abandon the claim entirely – which was the defending solicitor’s goal all along. In short, delay tactics turn legal process into a weapon against the very people ETs were designed to protect.
Misuse of Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs)
Perhaps the most insidious tool in the corrupt solicitor’s arsenal is the Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA). These confidentiality contracts – ostensibly meant to protect business information – have been twisted into gagging orders to silence victims of workplace abuse. In high-profile scandals from #MeToo onward, UK lawyers working for powerful men and companies drafted NDAs to bury allegations of sexual harassment, discrimination, and other misconduct. The modus operandi is chillingly consistent: offer a settlement in exchange for the employee’s silence, under threat of legal consequences if they ever speak out. NDAs have been used to conceal even criminal behaviour. As one Parliamentary submission summarized, “NDAs can be used to conceal serious ongoing criminal activity” and are an “off-the-shelf tool” for silencing whistleblowers and victims . In the employment context, NDAs often represent the final act of a corrupted tribunal process: after protracted, stressful negotiations – frequently drawn out by the tactics described above – the beleaguered employee is presented with a gagging agreement as “the only way out” . Rather than face endless delays and an uncertain tribunal outcome, many feel they have no choice but to sign away their voice.
These settlement gag orders encourage a culture of cover-ups. By hiding the wrongdoing, NDAs enable perpetrators to avoid public accountability and often remain in post to potentially offend again. A confidential payout might resolve one case quietly, but at the cost of institutional complicity: the underlying problems are kept hidden from regulators, shareholders, or future employees. As a result, repeat offenders thrive behind a veil of legal silence. The solicitors who engineer these agreements become, in effect, the fixers of misconduct, prioritising their client’s reputation over any notion of justice or public interest. Some lawyers go so far as to pressure their own clients into accepting NDAs that the clients do not want. The campaign group Can’t Buy My Silence (co-founded by Zelda Perkins, who famously broke her NDA with Harvey Weinstein) reports that it regularly heard from people frustrated that “their lawyer would not take instructions about not wanting to sign an NDA” – in other words, solicitors pushing victims to “shut up” when the victim actually wanted their day in court . This betrays the very duty of a solicitor to act in the client’s best interests with integrity. Instead, some seem to act in the interest of protecting the abuser (and earning an easy fee via settlement), effectively colluding to bury the truth.
Regulators have long been aware of NDA misuse, yet meaningful action has been lacking. Under public pressure, the SRA did issue warning notices (in 2018 and 2020) telling solicitors not to draft NDAs that prevent lawful reporting of misconduct . Reports of improper NDAs have since risen, especially in cases of sexual harassment and discrimination . The SRA claims it has “taken action” in a couple dozen instances – but the reality is far from a crackdown. By early 2024, the SRA reported dealing with 24 NDA-related cases across the entire profession . Tellingly, these were handled with kid gloves: since 2023, the regulator issued 11 letters of advice, 6 warnings, 6 rebukes, and only one fine in response to NDA misconduct . In other words, virtually no one lost their licence or even faced a tribunal for using “gagging” clauses to silence victims – most got off with a polite letter. This level of enforcement can only be described as feeble. It sends a clear signal to large firms and their clients that NDA abuse is low-risk. Indeed, one high-profile case underscores how toothless the system is: the Allen & Overy partner who helped craft Weinstein’s notorious NDA was investigated by the SRA and charged, but ultimately never faced any sanction. Citing the solicitor’s ill health, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) in 2021 stayed the prosecution indefinitely – despite acknowledging there was a “case to answer” regarding his conduct . The tribunal even voiced unease that this lawyer continued to practice law while effectively escaping the charges on medical grounds . To survivors of workplace abuse, such outcomes are a slap in the face: the lawyers who enable abuse through NDAs remain in practice, and the SRA’s much-touted warnings ring hollow in the absence of real accountability.
Conflicts of Interest and Collusion
Another corrosive aspect of solicitor misconduct in employment matters involves conflicts of interest – situations where a lawyer’s duty to one client (or to their own firm’s interest) undermines the fairness owed to others. In theory, professional rules forbid acting where there’s a conflict, but unethical solicitors find ways to bend this principle or exploit grey areas. In the context of Employment Tribunals, conflicts of interest can arise in subtler forms that nonetheless erode justice. For example, consider the struggle of whistleblowers or employees seeking legal representation against a powerful company or institution. It has emerged that some law firms quietly refuse to take on employee claims against big corporate employers because those firms hope to maintain or obtain the company’s business. In evidence gathered by regulators, one individual reported “difficulty obtaining legal advice for a case… as particular firms did not want to jeopardise any future work opportunities with the employer” . This implies that entire swathes of the legal profession may tacitly collude in protecting serial offenders, by denying their victims representation due to the lawyers’ own financial interests. Such a conflict – between the solicitor’s commercial gain and the client’s need for fearless advocacy – is deeply unethical. It leaves victims in a Catch-22: the more notorious or well-connected the alleged wrongdoer, the harder it is to find a lawyer willing to challenge them, which in turn lets misconduct continue unchecked.
Conflicts of interest also surface when professionals involved in a case stand to gain from skewing the outcome. A striking example came out of the SSB Law scandal (a massive consumer claims debacle) in which ancillary players had financial incentives to exaggerate claims. SSB, a now-collapsed firm, used certain surveyors to generate evidence for claims; “some surveyors had a conflict of interest because they had a financial interest in over-inflating claims,” according to witness testimony . In essence, the firm’s business model entangled third parties who would profit from misleading data – a blatant conflict that led to clients being misled about their case prospects. While that case was not an employment dispute, the pattern is illustrative: when lawyers entangle their services with other business interests or dual loyalties, clients can suffer, and outcomes can be engineered based on profit motives rather than truth. Within employment litigation, one might see analogous conflicts if, say, a solicitor conducts a company’s internal grievance investigation and then represents the company in tribunal – their prior role might compromise the fairness of the subsequent proceedings. Or a solicitor may have personal connections (old boys’ networks, shared business ventures) with key figures on the opposing side, which at worst could tip them into collusive arrangements against the client’s interests.
Disturbingly, even when conflicts of interest and related misconduct are glaring, the SRA has shown a pattern of shrugging off such complaints. Insiders recount instances where, “despite substantial evidence of misconduct – including conflicts of interest, data protection breaches, and unethical legal tactics – the SRA dismissed the case without meaningful investigation.” Each time the regulator turns a blind eye to a conflict or double-dealing, it reinforces an implicit green light for bad behaviour. The message received by some solicitors is that professional loyalty and ethics are optional when weighed against preserving a profitable client relationship. In this light, the failure to police conflicts doesn’t just harm individual clients; it undermines public trust that the legal system is fair. If big firms or connected lawyers are seen to play by different rules, confidence in the integrity of the tribunal system erodes even further.
The SRA’s Failure to Hold Solicitors Accountable
The Solicitors Regulation Authority likes to describe itself as protecting the public by enforcing high professional standards. In reality, the SRA’s track record on addressing solicitors’ misconduct – especially in contentious areas like employment disputes – can best be described as feeble and ineffectual. Critics have long dubbed the SRA a “toothless regulator,” noting its reluctance to take decisive action against solicitors who blatantly breach ethical rules . Time and again, individuals harmed by dishonest or aggressive legal tactics have reported solicitors to the SRA, only to see the regulator either do nothing or issue the lightest of slaps on the wrist. The pattern has become so flagrant that even within the legal profession and oversight bodies there is open scorn. A 2018 report by the Legal Services Board (LSB) highlighted a widespread perception that the SRA goes easy on powerful law firms, being more lenient with big players than it is with small practitioners . Indeed, numerous high-profile cases in recent years have borne this out, where prominent solicitors or large firms faced clear evidence of wrongdoing yet escaped any serious sanction . The impression is that the SRA is more concerned with shielding the reputation of the legal profession than with rigorously upholding the law . In the context of employment law, where large corporate employers often hire top solicitors to defend claims, this perceived bias and inaction effectively emboldens those solicitors to push the ethical envelope – they operate with near-impunity, confident that the regulator is unlikely to intervene unless a scandal makes headlines.
Even when confronted with egregious misconduct, the SRA’s response has often been slow, opaque, or ineffectual. The handling of the aforementioned SSB Law case is instructive. Clients of that firm (in a non-ET context) complained of serious misconduct – “unethical tactics” used on vulnerable clients and possible dishonesty in how claims were handled . One victim, having alerted the SRA, “expected action but encountered indifference” . According to meeting minutes reported by the Legal Services Consumer Panel, the SRA’s responses were “slow, dismissive, and avoided addressing serious concerns about misconduct.” The complainant observed that the SRA failed to thoroughly investigate and even “prematurely ruled out dishonesty” in the firm’s practices – a decision that conveniently meant affected clients could not claim compensation for fraud. The regulator appeared keener on closing the file and “focusing on efficiency rather than justice,” leaving victims feeling betrayed . If this is how the SRA handles a case with dozens of complaining clients and press coverage, one can imagine that a single employee alleging their employer’s solicitor misled the tribunal would likely get nowhere with a regulatory complaint. Indeed, solicitors have little to fear if they bend the rules in an ET; the chances of the SRA independently catching and prosecuting such behavior are slim, unless it crosses into overt criminality.
The SRA’s structural limitations contribute to this failure. The regulator cannot itself strike off a solicitor or impose serious sanctions without referring the matter to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal – a process that is costly, time-consuming, and public. The SRA appears disinclined to take on major firms in the tribunal unless absolutely forced. Instead, it often opts for behind-closed-doors resolutions like warnings or settlements. This tendency toward quiet, informal “action” leaves problematic solicitors free to continue practicing (the Weinstein NDA case being a prime example). Additionally, the SRA historically has been funded by the profession it regulates, which raises questions about its independence and appetite for ruffling feathers. Observers note a pattern of selective enforcement: solo practitioners or small firm lawyers who misbehave can expect swifter punishment, while well-connected lawyers at large firms often see their cases dropped or drawn out until attention fades . Such double standards were sharply criticized in a recent oversight review. In 2025, the Legal Services Board delivered a damning performance assessment of the SRA, finding it “underperforming” in core regulatory functions like enforcement and supervision . The LSB pointed to specific fiascos: most notably, the Axiom Ince scandal where over £60 million of client money went missing amid fraud – the SRA failed to act on warning signs, delayed intervening in the firm, and even neglected to promptly inform its own board of the mounting crisis . This delay contributed to greater losses and chaos, prompting the LSB to question the SRA’s internal accountability and effectiveness . The collapse of SSB Law (discussed above) was also referenced as an instance where “clear warning signs” of trouble were not handled properly . In short, the oversight body signaled that the SRA’s regulatory model is fundamentally falling short .
When it comes specifically to holding solicitors accountable for misconduct in Employment Tribunals, there is little evidence of a proactive stance. The SRA could take a strong line on, say, solicitors who abuse process or breach tribunal orders – these can violate principles of integrity and the proper administration of justice (Principle 1 and 5 of the SRA Code) . There is even an explicit rule against taking unfair advantage of opponents, which covers oppressive litigation behavior. Yet enforcement is rare. It speaks volumes that in the handful of recent cases where ET-related solicitor misconduct did result in discipline, the behaviour had to be truly outrageous: for example, a solicitor who lied to her client for 16 months about filing an ET claim and then forged documents to cover her tracks was finally struck off in 2023 . In that case, the solicitor went so far as to fabricate a client care letter and fake attendance notes, and even procured false witness statements from colleagues to pretend meetings had occurred . This brazen deceit caused the client to miss her chance at justice entirely. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal rightly called the misconduct “immense” harm to the profession’s reputation and removed the solicitor from practice. But consider the implication: short of outright fraud and forgery, very little seems to trigger the SRA’s disciplinary machinery. A solicitor can engage in all manner of “sharp practice” – bullying a claimant in cross-exam, hiding documents until the last minute, pushing unethical NDAs – and the SRA will seldom step in. In effect, the SRA has drawn the line of unacceptable conduct so far out that anything that isn’t blatant perjury or theft is tolerated as zealous advocacy. This laissez-faire approach leaves a vast grey area where unethical behaviour festers and victims of it have nowhere to turn.
Institutional Enablers and the Call for Reform
The problem of corrupt solicitors in ETs is not just about a few “bad apples” – it is systemic, sustained by institutional enablers and a culture of complicity. The legal profession’s power structures, the limitations of the tribunal system, and the failures of regulation all combine to create an environment where these abuses can thrive. At the tribunals themselves, procedural rules aim for informality and speed, but they lack strong deterrents against abuse. Tribunal judges do their best to manage cases fairly, and they can issue case management orders or cost warnings. However, with heavy caseloads and many litigants appearing in person, there is only so much scrutiny that can be applied. If a determined solicitor chooses to engage in guerilla litigation tactics – dumping documents late, filing frivolous applications, exploiting every loophole – the tribunal may struggle to rein them in without significant delay or expense (which judges are understandably reluctant to add to an already burdened system). Moreover, costs sanctions in ETs are exceptionally rare, used in well under 1% of cases, and usually only for conduct that is grossly unreasonable. This means that, in practice, a solicitor can push the procedural envelope with little fear that their client will be hit with a costs order. The worst that happens is a stern word from a judge or a mildly critical remark in a judgment. For some ethically indifferent lawyers, that’s no disincentive at all.
Within law firms and corporate legal departments, a culture can develop that prizes “winning” over ethics. If senior partners or clients expect their solicitors to do whatever it takes to defeat claims, then shady tactics may even be tacitly encouraged. Junior solicitors learn by example that getting a case struck out on a technicality – even if it means ambushing an unrepresented opponent – is a cause for congratulation, not discipline. In high-stakes disputes (discrimination cases against a bank, for instance), the pressure on the legal team to protect the client can be immense. Without a strong countervailing force of regulation or ethics training, zeal can cross into misconduct. Non-disclosure agreements became routine tools for HR and their lawyers because, for years, everyone was doing it and it was hugely effective in burying scandals. It took public outrage and Parliamentary pressure to even dent that norm. Likewise, delay tactics and aggressive procedural maneuvers remain commonplace strategies taught in some litigation playbooks – they are viewed as legitimate tactics in service of the client, unless and until a regulator says otherwise. But the regulator hasn’t said otherwise; in fact, by largely ignoring these issues, the SRA has effectively normalized them.
It is telling that external oversight bodies and even the government have started to intervene where the SRA did not. The Legal Services Board, as noted, has stepped in with an unprecedented rebuke of the SRA’s failings . The LSB has even issued binding directions to force improvements after the Axiom Ince affair . Meanwhile, lawmakers have contemplated directly curbing NDAs through legislation, reflecting frustration with self-regulation. For example, members of Parliament like Dame Maria Miller have advocated that lawyers should be explicitly barred from using NDAs to silence harassment or abuse victims . Such proposals essentially acknowledge that the profession hasn’t policed itself, requiring outside action to protect the public. Similarly, there are calls for a tougher stance on equality of arms in tribunals – perhaps providing legal aid or advocacy support for claimants to counter the resource imbalance. If claimants had skilled representation, many of the underhanded tricks deployed by defence solicitors would be neutralised or called out immediately. Strengthening the tribunal’s case management powers and willingness to award costs against egregious behaviour could also deter the worst abuses. These reforms, however, face resistance from those who benefit from the status quo.
In sum, the scandal of corrupt solicitors in Employment Tribunals is sustained by a perfect storm of weak oversight and strong self-interest. The SRA’s abdication of robust enforcement, combined with a tribunal system ill-equipped to punish misconduct, creates a moral hazard: solicitors who skirt the law do so knowing the odds of personal consequences are negligible. The institutional message – whether intended or not – has been that winning a case justifies the means. The victims of this regime are not only the mistreated employees who leave the process disillusioned or devastated; it is also the public’s faith in the legal system that is undermined. Each story of a bully in the courtroom, a whistleblower muzzled by an NDA, or a regulator ignoring cries for help, chips away at the notion that the law is fair for all.
For the tide to turn, systemic change is imperative. Regulators must toughen up – the SRA needs a cultural overhaul to become the fearless watchdog it claims to be, one that puts public protection before guild solidarity. This means actually prosecuting misconduct, big and small, and treating “lawyerly” abuses in tribunals as seriously as other ethical breaches. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, too, should not shy away from holding powerful solicitors to account; no more quietly shelving cases because the solicitor is prominent or unwell. The legal profession must also rediscover its moral compass. Solicitors are officers of the court, duty-bound to uphold the law, not subvert it. It is entirely possible to advocate zealously for a client without engaging in dishonesty, undue aggression, or cynical delay – countless ethical lawyers do it every day. Those who choose the dark path must no longer be coddled by their peers or overseers.
Ultimately, shining a light on these corrupt practices is the first step. What thrives in darkness – backroom settlements, procedural bullying, regulatory inaction – can be curbed by public scrutiny and outrage. If enough voices call out the misconduct and the institutional failures enabling it, change becomes not only possible but unavoidable. The stakes are high: nothing less than the integrity of the UK’s employment justice system. Employees wronged at work deserve real justice, not a rigged game. And the public deserves a legal system where no solicitor is above the law, and no regulator will look the other way. The time for excuses is over – it’s time to end the corruption and complicity that have plagued Employment Tribunals for too long.
Sources:
- Solicitors Journal – Costs awards and misconduct in Employment Tribunals
- Legal Futures – Solicitor misled client about tribunal claim (Chukwudolue case)
- Legal Futures – SRA action (or lack thereof) on NDA misuse
- Legal Futures – SSB Law scandal and SRA’s response
- Legal Futures – Weinstein NDA case against A&O partner
- Parliamentary Written Evidence – Misuse of NDAs in discrimination cases
- Vishal Shah (LinkedIn) – Common delay tactics by defense lawyers
- Legal Services Board report (via Lexology) – Criticism of SRA’s regulatory failures
Disclaimer
This article is provided for general information and commentary only. It does not constitute legal advice, nor does it establish a solicitor-client relationship. Readers should seek independent, qualified legal counsel before acting on any points discussed. All factual references are drawn from publicly available sources; any errors or omissions are unintentional.