Written by Acknowledgment: The Driving Force Behind This Study
This article and the ongoing research into regulatory bias would not have been possible without the work of Fatimat Delisa Abimbola, a trainee solicitor and the founder of Reform the Regulator. Her dedication to exposing institutional discrimination in legal regulation, combined with her leadership in conducting The Regulatory Race Report, has provided the foundation for this critical analysis. Through her research, case reviews, and advocacy, she continues to challenge systemic failings and push for meaningful accountability in legal oversight.
Regulatory bodies are expected to uphold fairness and impartiality. However, evidence shows that Black, Asian, and minority ethnic (BAME) solicitors are disproportionately investigated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA).
In 2020/21, Black solicitors accounted for 4% of those reported to the SRA, despite making up only 3% of practising solicitors. Asian solicitors, comprising 12% of the profession, were 54% more likely to be reported than their white counterparts.
In 2024, the SRA commissioned an independent review into this “longstanding overrepresentation.” The study concluded that while there were “statistically significant differences” in regulatory outcomes for ethnic minority solicitors, it could not confirm whether ethnicity was the “driving force” behind these disparities.
This deliberate ambiguity allows the SRA to sidestep accountability. The data is clear—BAME solicitors are disproportionately investigated, yet the SRA refuses to acknowledge or address the systemic bias within its enforcement practices.
The Regulatory Race Report: Exposing the Bias
I am a trainee solicitor and graduate of The University of Warwick, with experience working alongside Rt Hon David Lammy, Geoffrey Williams KC, Legal Lens, and trade unions.
Through these interactions, I founded Reform the Regulator, a group dedicated to exposing bias within the legal profession. Our upcoming Regulatory Race Report (due December 2025) critically examines the SRA’s decision-making process, focusing on:
- The threshold for referrals – Are cases against BAME solicitors escalated with weaker evidence?
- Comparative case analysis – Do white solicitors facing similar allegations receive different treatment?
- The impact of regulatory scrutiny – How does over-policing affect BAME solicitors’ careers?
We have reviewed over 1,000 SRA cases and identified a pattern of disproportionate prosecutions, often based on hearsay evidence, vague allegations, and a lack of documentary proof.
Case Studies: The Double Standard
William Amo
A former trainee solicitor at Holland Knight LLP and of West African descent, Amo faced an SRA referral to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) based entirely on hearsay allegations from his former employer.
Crucially, the firm failed to produce an “agreed meeting note” to substantiate the claims against him. The SDT dismissed the case, but Amo received no compensation for the unnecessary ordeal or reputational damage inflicted by the SRA.
George Fahim Sa’id
A sole practitioner of South Asian descent, Sa’id failed to identify a Politically Exposed Person (PEP) during anti-money laundering checks. He admitted his mistake, yet the SRA accused him of dishonesty and recklessness and referred him to the SDT.
The SDT dismissed all allegations, ruling they were not proven on the balance of probabilities. Yet, the SRA’s aggressive approach led to significant legal costs and reputational harm, for which Sa’id received no redress.
📄 SDT Case: George Fahim Sa’id
Aloysius Igwebuike Obi vs Jonathan Reynolds MP
Obi, a solicitor of West African descent, was struck off for misrepresenting his status as a solicitor in 2002, despite having since requalified. His application for readmission to the Roll was refused by the High Court.
Yet, when Jonathan Reynolds MP, now Business Secretary, falsely claimed to be a solicitor on his LinkedIn profile, no regulatory action was taken. The SRA’s silence raises an uncomfortable question: Why is misrepresentation a strike-off offence for a Black solicitor but ignored when committed by a white MP?
📄 Jonathan Reynolds CV Scandal 📄 SRA Register: Obi Case
The Fate of Whistleblowers
The SRA claims to protect the public, yet its handling of whistleblowers suggests a different priority—silencing those who expose wrongdoing.
R. Kaur v Gillen De Alwis Solicitors
Kaur, a South Asian trainee solicitor, reported bullying and harassment at her law firm to the SRA. She was subsequently dismissed and later won £36,000 for unfair dismissal at the Employment Tribunal.
Despite proven findings in court, the SRA took no action against the firm. Worse still, it failed to support Kaur in completing her training contract. This selective enforcement emboldens bad actors while discouraging whistleblowing.
Onyango v Berkeley Solicitors
Onyango, a solicitor of East African descent, reported serious misconduct at his firm to the Legal Services Board. Instead of investigating, the SRA chose to pursue an allegation of dishonesty against Onyango himself—brought by the same firm he had exposed.
The SDT dismissed all charges, confirming the allegations were made in bad faith. However, Onyango’s qualification period was delayed by two years, causing irreparable damage to his career.
📄 Case Law: Onyango v Berkeley Solicitors
How to Challenge the SRA
The SRA’s unchecked power has led to discrimination, procedural abuse, and regulatory failures. However, solicitors do have legal routes to challenge its actions.
1. Employment Tribunal
If you are facing discrimination by the SRA as a “qualification body”, you can bring a claim under s.53 Equality Act 2010 before the Employment Tribunal.
📄 Key Case: Adekunle Soyege v SRA – ET confirmed jurisdiction over SRA discrimination claims 🔗 ET Ruling: Soyege v SRA
2. Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) Complaints
If you wish to challenge a solicitor, you may submit a prescribed form directly to the SDT. Due to the high failure rate of self-submitted complaints, legal assistance is recommended.
3. National Audit Office (NAO) Reports
The NAO investigates systemic issues in public bodies, including the SRA. If you have evidence of discrimination, bias, or regulatory failures, you can submit an anonymous complaint.
📩 reformtheregulator@outlook.com 🔗 NAO Contact Information
Conclusion
The SRA continues to operate without meaningful oversight, disproportionately targeting BAME solicitors while failing to hold power to account. This is not incompetence—it is systemic bias masquerading as regulation.
Through Reform the Regulator, we are gathering evidence, case law, and testimonies to expose these failures and push for real accountability. If you have been affected by unfair treatment, we urge you to come forward.
Justice should not be selective. Regulation should not be weaponised. The fight for fairness starts now.
Disclaimer:
This article is based on publicly available data, tribunal decisions, and case studies. While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy, the views expressed reflect the findings of Reform the Regulator and do not constitute legal advice. Readers affected by regulatory discrimination should seek independent legal guidance.