Written by Law firm governance - professional responsibility - public trust
When serious concerns arise about a law firm, responsibility rarely sits at only one desk. The acting solicitor may have made the immediate decision, but supervisors, managers, compliance officers and the authorised firm may each carry distinct obligations. The difficult question is not simply who touched the file. It is who knew, who should have known, what controls existed and what happened when the risk was raised.
Snapshot
This article examines how professional responsibility is distributed within an authorised law firm. Using allegations contained in the supplied Burnetts Solicitors case study, it separates individual conduct from supervision, management, compliance and firm-wide governance. It does not treat the allegations as findings. Its focus is the evidence required to determine who made a decision, who approved it, what information was available and whether the firm's systems responded properly.
Reader note: this article is public-interest commentary and practical legal education. References to Burnetts Solicitors and alleged conflicts, misleading conduct, evidence impropriety, unjust enrichment or governance failure are criticism and analysis based on the source material supplied. They should not be read as findings of fact, misconduct, dishonesty, unlawful conduct or professional wrongdoing unless established by a competent court, tribunal, regulator, ombudsman, inquiry, audit report or official decision.
The accountability question
Public criticism of a law firm often begins with a single act: a conflict check said to have failed, a letter said to be misleading, evidence said to have been mishandled or a complaint said to have been ignored. The immediate temptation is to identify one individual and treat that person as the complete explanation.
Law firms do not operate only through isolated professional choices. Work is allocated, supervised, approved, recorded and escalated through organisational systems. A solicitor may be personally responsible for a statement or decision. A supervisor may remain accountable for work completed through others. Managers may be responsible for the controls and culture within which the decision was made. Compliance officers may have duties to take reasonable steps and report serious regulatory concerns. The authorised firm can itself face regulatory action.
That does not make every senior person responsible for every mistake. Responsibility must follow evidence: authority, knowledge, involvement, supervision, warning signs and the obligations attached to the person's role.
Core distinction. Organisational accountability is not collective guilt. It is a structured inquiry into conduct, authority, knowledge, supervision, systems and response.
The professional foundations
The current SRA Principles apply to authorised individuals, authorised firms and relevant managers and employees. They require conduct that upholds the rule of law and the proper administration of justice, public trust and confidence, independence, honesty, integrity, equality and each client's best interests. Where principles conflict, obligations protecting the wider public interest may take precedence over the interests of an individual client.
The Codes then translate those principles into operational duties. Solicitors must not take unfair advantage, mislead clients, courts or others, misuse evidence or put forward assertions that are not properly arguable. They must act competently, supervise effectively and justify their decisions.
The Legal Services Act 2007 places the regulatory system within broader objectives that include protecting and promoting the public interest, supporting the rule of law, protecting consumers and encouraging an independent, strong, diverse and effective legal profession. Those objectives matter because professional accountability is not only a private matter between solicitor and client.
The solicitor must comply personally with duties governing honesty, integrity, conflicts, evidence and client interests.
Delegation does not remove accountability for work carried out through supervised staff.
The authorised firm must maintain systems, records and controls capable of preventing and identifying material risk.
Serious professional failure can engage the regulator even where a private dispute is also continuing.
The acting solicitor
The solicitor with conduct of the matter carries the most immediate professional responsibility. They decide what advice is given, which assertions are advanced, how documents are used and whether the instruction can properly be accepted or continued.
Where a conflict is alleged, the inquiry should identify what the solicitor knew about the earlier and later matters, what confidential information was held and what conflict analysis was completed. Where misleading conduct is alleged, the exact words, document, source material and state of knowledge at the time are central. Where evidence impropriety is alleged, it is necessary to distinguish an error, disputed interpretation, careless assertion and deliberate manipulation.
The professional rules do not permit a solicitor to avoid responsibility merely because the client wanted a particular position advanced. Nor can a solicitor rely on internal approval as a complete answer to personal misconduct. Advice from a supervisor or manager may be relevant to knowledge and reasonableness, but each regulated professional remains responsible for their own conduct.
Who was the client, what authority existed and what objective was the solicitor asked to pursue?
What earlier file, confidential information, correspondence or contrary evidence was known?
What position was taken, what alternatives were considered and what reason was recorded?
What happened when the concern, contradiction or potential error was raised?
Supervisors and delegated work
Legal work is frequently carried out through teams. A junior fee earner may draft a letter, assemble evidence or communicate a position that was selected or approved elsewhere. The SRA Code makes clear that a person who supervises or manages others remains accountable for work carried out through them and must supervise effectively.
Supervision should therefore be visible in the file. High-risk decisions may require review of conflicts, limitation, client money, allegations of dishonesty, serious evidential disputes or correspondence capable of materially affecting proceedings. A signature or automated approval field is not necessarily proof of meaningful review.
The supervisor's responsibility depends on the task and the control exercised. A supervisor who approved the substantive position is differently placed from a manager with no involvement in the file. Equally, a supervisor cannot rely on lack of knowledge where the firm's process required review and obvious warning signs were not examined.
Identify what the fee earner drafted, decided, communicated or filed.
Establish who was responsible for supervision and what approval was required.
Determine whether the reviewer considered the material risk or merely processed the document.
Record whether a concern was raised and how the supervisor responded.
Managers and the authorised firm
The SRA Code for Firms requires effective governance structures, systems and controls. Those arrangements must support compliance by the firm, its managers and employees, enable compliance officers to perform their functions and produce records demonstrating compliance. Firms must identify, monitor and manage material risks and maintain effective systems for supervising client matters.
This creates a form of institutional responsibility distinct from the conduct of one fee earner. If a conflict search was never completed because the system was inadequate, the problem may be firm-wide. If serious complaints repeatedly fail to reach an independent reviewer, the escalation design may be defective. If commercial pressure discourages challenge, the culture may undermine formal policies.
Managers are not automatically liable because they hold senior titles. The relevant questions are what responsibility they held, what information reached them, what controls they approved and whether they caused, contributed to or failed to address a serious compliance problem within their remit.
Searches capable of identifying former matters, related parties, connected assets and material confidential information.
A route for fee earners, clients and staff to raise concerns to someone able to act independently.
Contemporaneous documentation of approval, reasons, safeguards and remedial action.
Correction of individual harm and changes designed to prevent recurrence.
Compliance officers
Authorised firms ordinarily have a compliance officer for legal practice and a compliance officer for finance and administration. Their roles are significant, but they are not a substitute for the responsibilities of every manager and solicitor.
The Code for Firms requires a COLP to take all reasonable steps to secure compliance with the firm's authorisation and applicable SRA arrangements, and to ensure prompt reporting of matters reasonably believed capable of amounting to a serious breach. The COFA has corresponding responsibilities concerning the SRA Accounts Rules and serious accounts-related breaches.
The phrase “all reasonable steps” requires a fact-sensitive assessment. A compliance officer may need adequate authority, access to records, resources and independence. The firm's governance arrangements must enable compliance officers to discharge their duties. A role existing on an organisational chart is not enough if concerns can be withheld, overridden or left undocumented.
Promote compliance, investigate or escalate concerns within remit and ensure serious matters are reported where required.
Managers, supervisors and fee earners retain their own obligations; the COLP or COFA does not absorb them.
The Burnetts case study
The supplied draft alleges that Burnetts Solicitors acted in connection with a Will and later represented an opposing interest in a dispute concerning a business asset associated with the earlier work. It further alleges misleading conduct, fabricated evidence, unjust enrichment and failures by senior and compliance personnel to intervene. Those are serious allegations. The draft itself does not establish them.
For accountability purposes, the case study should be broken into separate decisions. Who accepted the later instruction? What did the conflict search reveal? What information from the earlier file was material? Which solicitor formulated the disputed position? Who reviewed the relevant evidence or correspondence? When was the complaint escalated? Which manager or compliance officer received it, and what action followed?
The firm may dispute the factual connection between the matters, deny holding material confidential information, contend that the evidence was properly interpreted or produce records showing that the concerns were independently reviewed. A fair publication must reflect any substantive response and distinguish the complainant's case from an established regulatory or judicial finding.
The value of the case study is therefore not that it supplies a ready-made verdict. It shows why accountability must be mapped across decisions and roles rather than asserted through institutional language alone.
The evidence test
A credible accountability analysis should reconstruct the file as a decision chain. The original and later retainers identify the clients, scope and legal relationships. Conflict-search records show what was checked. Earlier file documents reveal what confidential information was held. Drafting history and approval records may show who authored and reviewed disputed correspondence or evidence.
Complaint records are equally important. A complaint to a managing partner or compliance officer does not establish that the allegation was correct, but it may establish knowledge and trigger a duty to investigate or escalate. The response should show what evidence was considered, who made the decision and whether remedial or reporting obligations were addressed.
The absence of records can itself be relevant because firms are required to maintain records demonstrating compliance. It does not automatically prove misconduct. It may, however, weaken a claim that a careful process occurred.
The exact letter, pleading, witness material, transaction or decision said to be improper.
Retainers, allocation records, approval limits and the responsibilities attached to each role.
Emails, attendance notes, complaint records, meeting notes and system alerts.
Conflict checks, supervision logs, compliance review, policies, audit trails and remediation.
What should happen when things go wrong?
The regulatory framework expects more than defensive correspondence. Solicitors and firms must be honest and open with clients when things go wrong, put matters right where possible and explain what happened and its likely impact. Serious breaches may require prompt reporting to the SRA.
A defensible response begins by preserving the file and separating the investigation from the individuals whose decisions are challenged. It should identify the allegation, evidence, legal or regulatory standard and any immediate risk to a client, court, third party or client money. Where the concern is substantiated, correction and notification should not wait for the complainant to force each step.
Where the complaint is rejected, the reasons should still be intelligible. The response should explain what was reviewed, what was accepted or disputed and why the firm concluded that no conflict, misleading conduct or governance failure occurred. Clear reasons protect clients and firms alike.
Secure the complete file, drafting history, system records, ledgers and communications.
Use a reviewer with sufficient independence, authority and access to the evidence.
Correct errors, protect affected interests and explain the likely impact.
Address regulatory reporting and change systems where the problem may recur.
Governance reform that can be tested
Calls for ethical culture are easy to make and difficult to audit. Reform is stronger when it produces observable controls.
Conflict systems should search related parties, assets and former matters rather than rely only on exact name matches. High-risk decisions should identify a responsible reviewer and record the basis of approval. Compliance officers should have direct access to material records and a protected escalation route. Serious complaints should be investigated by someone sufficiently independent from the disputed decision.
Training should use real decision patterns rather than abstract slogans: former-client information, pressure from an important client, evidence that contradicts a pleaded position, and the moment at which an internal concern becomes reportable. Audit should test whether the control was actually used.
The aim is not to eliminate every professional error. It is to ensure that risk is identified, responsibility can be traced and serious concerns cannot disappear between individual and institutional accountability.
Source anchors
These official sources support the current professional and governance framework. They do not establish the disputed facts of the Burnetts case study or determine responsibility in any individual matter.
The current fundamental duties concerning the rule of law, public trust, independence, honesty, integrity and client interests.
Duties governing misleading conduct, evidence, competence, supervision, conflicts, confidentiality and accountability.
The current requirements concerning governance, risk, records, supervision, managers and compliance officers.
The regulatory objectives and professional principles for legal services in England and Wales.
The oversight structure and separation between the representative and independent regulatory functions for solicitors.
The closing point
Responsibility inside a law firm is layered, but it should not be diffuse. The acting solicitor answers for personal conduct. Supervisors answer for the work carried out through them. Managers and the firm answer for governance and risk controls. Compliance officers answer for the reasonable steps and reporting duties attached to their roles.
The evidence may show individual error, organisational failure, both or neither. The public-interest requirement is that the decision chain can be reconstructed and tested. Accountability fails when every person can point elsewhere and the firm cannot show who was responsible for identifying and addressing the risk.
Law firm accountability decision point
Get a free written assessment of the evidence route
Legal Lens can structure a preliminary written review of a law firm accountability concern: the disputed conduct, decision chain, supervision, compliance response and available route.
Identify who acted, approved, supervised, knew, investigated and held the relevant compliance role.
Separate service, conduct, conflict, evidence, negligence, costs and regulatory-reporting issues.
Conduct, authority, knowledge, supervision, governance and reporting.
Key records, missing documents, disputed facts and route options.
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.