Written by Having dealt personally with the SRA, it is clear to me that this body is not fit for purpose. The SRA is supposed to regulate the legal profession, uphold justice, and protect the public, but instead, it behaves like an inept sheriff in a lawless Wild West town—drunk, incapable, and ultimately indifferent to the chaos surrounding it. My grievances, backed by credible evidence of solicitor misconduct, were simply brushed aside, and I have seen that I am far from alone in experiencing this kind of treatment.
This article follows my previous pieces on the SRA’s troubling inaction, such as ‘The SRA and Trustpilot: A Troubling View of Legal Regulation‘ and ‘Enforcement Action Against the Solicitors Regulation Authority: Lessons from the Axiom Ince Review‘. Time and again, the SRA has proven itself unwilling or unable to fulfil its role effectively, and the Axiom Ince scandal is just the latest in a long series of regulatory failures that raise serious questions about their competence.
The SRA claims to be a regulatory force, yet when presented with the opportunity to prove its worth, it falls woefully short. My experience with them revealed an organisation that is fundamentally reactive, not proactive. When I submitted my complaint—supported by irrefutable documentation that a solicitor had embezzled funds—I naïvely expected due process. I assumed they would investigate thoroughly, hold those involved accountable, and ensure justice was served. Instead, my evidence was swept under the rug, treated as though it were an inconvenient footnote in the SRA’s overflowing backlog of complaints.
As I highlighted in ‘Why Do Solicitors and Barristers Bend the Rules? The Pernicious Underside of the UK Legal System‘, the lack of accountability and transparency in legal regulation creates an environment in which misconduct can flourish unchecked. The Axiom Ince debacle underscores this issue perfectly: even large-scale, clear-cut regulatory failures do not compel the SRA into meaningful action. A law firm collapses, leaving £60 million in client money unaccounted for, over 1,400 people lose their jobs, and what does the SRA do? They point fingers, evade responsibility, and take action only once it’s far too late. They speak of tightening procedures and learning lessons, but for those of us who have faced the SRA, we know this is nothing but lip service—another entry in their well-thumbed playbook of excuses.
How can any of us trust a regulator that is only willing to act after the damage has been done, and even then, only reluctantly? My case was not an anomaly. It seems the SRA applies the same dismissive, complacent approach to countless others. Many of us have followed their convoluted complaints procedures, supplied the evidence they require, and even exhausted their so-called independent review process—only to be met with a wall of indifference. It seems the SRA has perfected the art of inaction, shrouding itself in bureaucracy to avoid accountability.
The fundamental problem is that the SRA sets an absurdly high bar for taking action. Their threshold for intervention is so lofty that almost no complaint, however severe, ever merits their attention. They argue that a rigorous process is necessary to avoid frivolous claims, but in practice, this serves as a convenient excuse to do nothing. They demand mountains of evidence, and even when those mountains are delivered, they remain indifferent, brushing complaints aside with boilerplate responses that offer neither transparency nor justice.
The Axiom Ince case is a damning indictment of the SRA’s ineptitude. Here was a major law firm with glaring financial irregularities, a massive shortfall in client money, and even allegations of fraud. The SRA had warning signs—early opportunities to intervene—but instead, they opted for a “light touch.” By the time they finally took action, the damage was already irreparable. If the SRA cannot effectively regulate in such a monumental case, what hope is there for individuals like us, whose complaints may seem small in comparison but are equally deserving of justice?
In ‘How Solicitors and Barristers Can Mislead the Court: A Case Study‘, I explored how regulatory gaps allow misconduct to persist. The truth is that the SRA is simply too close to the very entities it is supposed to regulate. Funded by solicitors and law firms, the SRA finds itself in a conflict of interest—one that inevitably leads to regulatory capture. They are beholden to those they should be scrutinising, and as a result, they bend over backwards to protect solicitors while paying lip service to public accountability. It is no surprise, then, that so many of us have found our complaints treated with utter disdain.
The SRA’s handling of complaints is marked by evasion and excuses. They are quick to argue that the complexity of the legal profession makes oversight difficult, that hindsight makes their failures seem worse than they were, and that they are somehow under-resourced to fulfil their duties. But these are hollow justifications from an organisation that refuses to learn or adapt. They have had ample opportunities to implement meaningful reforms, to demonstrate a genuine commitment to protecting the public, yet time and again, they choose inaction. The Axiom Ince fiasco is just the latest in a long line of failures, each one a testament to the SRA’s unwillingness to be the regulator it claims to be.
What we are left with is a legal industry that operates like the Wild West—where unethical solicitors can lie, cheat, and defraud clients without fear of consequence, and where the SRA is the ineffective sheriff, stumbling around in a haze of incompetence. This is not the regulation we deserve. The public needs a regulator that is independent, proactive, and genuinely committed to justice—not a puppet of the legal industry, swayed by those it is supposed to keep in check.
The SRA must be held accountable, just as they claim solicitors should be. They need to start listening to the public, lowering the barriers to action, and embracing transparency at every turn. Until they do, the legal industry will remain a chaotic landscape where those seeking justice find themselves alone, facing an indifferent regulator and an opaque system designed to protect the powerful.
It is time for change. The SRA must be replaced, reformed, or fundamentally overhauled. We cannot allow this ineffective, indifferent body to continue to pretend it is safeguarding public trust. The SRA’s failures have had real, tangible consequences—lives have been ruined, money lost, and trust shattered. Enough is enough. We need a regulator that actually regulates—not one that hides behind excuses while the public suffers.
#LegalReform #SRATrustpilot #Accountability #LegalRegulation #JusticeForAll #UKLaw #ConsumerRights #SolicitorsRegulation #PublicTrust
John we need to talk, I have so many examples of this