Written by In my previous articles, I’ve criticised the SRA’s failures extensively. The Axiom Ince scandal is just one example that highlights how a body meant to regulate the profession often appears to shield it instead. However, I now find myself at a point where I must engage with the wider regulatory system, specifically the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT).
As I embark on my own journey with the SDT, I realise that while my criticism of the SRA still stands, a more balanced understanding of the entire regulatory process is required. The SDT’s guidance makes it clear: applicants must engage with the SRA first. This is not a message we, as frustrated complainants, want to hear, but it’s a reality we must acknowledge.
The SDT process offers both challenges and opportunities. Importantly, the SDT is clear about its limitations—it lacks investigative powers, cannot collect evidence, and does not award compensation. This means that navigating the SRA’s processes, as exhausting as they are, becomes necessary groundwork for any case that ultimately makes its way to the SDT. Documentation is key—every attempt to resolve an issue, every piece of evidence, and every SRA response (or lack thereof) should be meticulously recorded.
One significant aspect of this process is preparing the Rule 12 Statement for the SDT. This isn’t just another form—it’s a critical opportunity to lay out the facts, supported by clear evidence, that demonstrate professional misconduct. Success here requires more than dissatisfaction with how the SRA operates; it requires careful planning and precision.
Another factor is cost. The SDT may order costs against any party, including the applicant, and this is a reality I must also face. It’s not about discouraging applications, but about ensuring they have genuine merit. This emphasises the need for a solid, well-founded case, not just grievances.
The SDT’s hearing process is similarly demanding. Applicants must present their own case before a panel of two solicitors and one lay person. This includes questioning witnesses and challenging evidence—a daunting but essential step if we are to see meaningful consequences for misconduct.
The SDT’s guide also emphasises attempting direct resolution with the firm involved, and considering the Legal Ombudsman before turning to the SRA. It’s a frustrating path, but each step taken and documented strengthens any potential SDT application.
Reflecting on this journey, I see now that while my criticisms of the SRA are justified, pursuing accountability demands more than just railing against an imperfect system. It requires us to work through these processes—however flawed—while thoroughly documenting their inadequacies.
For those who follow my writing, and those considering their own regulatory battles, my stance on the SRA hasn’t changed: it is deeply flawed. However, I now see that working through the system and documenting its failures is the path to genuine accountability. I will continue to share my experiences as I navigate this process, hoping that by doing so, we might push for meaningful change.
#SDTApplications #LegalAccountability #ProfessionalStandards #UKLaw #LegalReform
Disclaimer: The information provided in this article is based on my personal experiences and understanding of the SDT and SRA processes. It is intended for informational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice. For specific legal concerns, please consult a qualified legal professional.