Written by For more than a decade, the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) – the body policing England and Wales’s 150,000+ solicitors – has faced mounting criticism for failing to act in the face of serious lawyer misconduct. Allegations of fraud, dishonesty and even criminal behaviour by solicitors have repeatedly gone unpunished or met with only mild rebukes, prompting accusations of an “old boys’ club” culture and regulatory capture within the SRA. This investigation finds a pattern of inaction and leniency that many say is undermining public trust in the legal profession.
Fraud Allegations, Little Action
One of the most striking examples was the collapse of law firm Axiom Ince in 2023 – a fiasco that saw nearly £60 million in client money go missing and 1,400 staff lose their jobs. An independent review by the Legal Services Board (LSB) delivered a damning verdict: the SRA “did not act adequately, effectively and efficiently” in the lead‑up to Axiom’s implosion, missing multiple opportunities to spot and stop the alleged fraud. Internal SRA staff had raised concerns about unusual transactions as early as October 2022, but regulators failed to follow up properly, a “missed opportunity” that allowed the misappropriation to continue unchecked. It was only in mid‑2023 – after tens of millions were gone – that the SRA intervened to suspend Axiom’s managing director for suspected dishonesty and belatedly shut down the firm. The fallout was enormous: clients’ funds vanished, and the Serious Fraud Office opened a criminal probe, while the SRA came under unprecedented scrutiny for not acting sooner.
Axiom Ince is far from an isolated incident. Kingly Solicitors collapsed amidst allegations of wrongdoing, costing the profession over £10 million to compensate victims. The SRA’s own compensation fund pays out around £15 million each year to hundreds of clients who fall victim to solicitor fraud – stark evidence, critics say, that too many rogue lawyers operate until it is far too late. “They consistently turn a blind eye to misconduct, resulting in a system where unethical behaviour goes unchecked, clients are harmed, and solicitors who breach rules or even defy court orders face no real consequences,” warns one legal‑ethics campaigner.
Even when red flags are raised, action can be sluggish. In one instance it took the SRA three years merely to decide notto pursue regulatory action against a solicitor, a delay so prolonged the solicitor began to suspect racial bias (an independent review later found no evidence of that). According to the SRA, the majority of complaints it receives are from members of the public unhappy that the regulator declined even to investigate their allegations. Seven in ten complaints about the SRA’s own service relate to its decisions to take no further action. Such statistics fuel a perception that, too often, the watchdog prefers to look the other way.
The SRA insists it is improving. It intervenes in a few dozen law firms each year to shut down those posing risks, and it has recently bolstered its investigation teams to “combat delays” and speed up action on serious matters. In the wake of the Axiom scandal the regulator has changed procedures – for example, investigators must now verify client‑account balances directly with banks to detect theft. “With hindsight, the report has highlighted things we could – rather than just should – have done,” SRA chief executive Paul Philip acknowledged, while also cautioning that “it is unrealistic to expect regulation to prevent all harms.” But for many observers, these reforms come only after catastrophic failures – and the question remains why warning signs were missed in the first place.
An “Old Boys’ Club” Culture?
One explanation floated by critics is a deep‑seated culture of favouritism and deference within the legal establishment. The SRA is funded by fees from the very solicitors and law firms it regulates – a model some say creates a built‑in conflict of interest. “By allowing the solicitors it oversees to fund its operations, the SRA is essentially beholden to the very individuals and firms it must scrutinise,” argues one veteran compliance consultant. In plain terms, the fear is that a regulator reliant on the profession’s money and goodwill may be reluctant to police that profession aggressively.
Insiders complain of an “old boys’ club” – a network where hard sanctions are for small players, while big‑name lawyers enjoy cosy relations. Unverified allegations of back‑channel influence and lenient treatment abound. While concrete proof of bribery is lacking, the perception of bias is palpable, and whistle‑blowers describe an atmosphere where powerful firms are given the benefit of the doubt.
A case in point involves whistle‑blower Alison McDermott, an HR consultant who in 2018 raised harassment concerns inside a major agency’s legal department. After she made protected disclosures, the prominent law firm representing the agency pursued her personally for hefty costs – an intimidating tactic. Rather than shield McDermott, the SRA allowed the costs threat to proceed, despite having earlier assured her that no retaliation would occur. The incident prompted MP Philip Davies to demand an explanation, calling the regulator’s stance “a failure to defend a bona fide whistle‑blower”.
The SRA denies favouritism, noting that its board includes lay members and that it has prosecuted high‑profile partners for misconduct. Academic studies of disciplinary outcomes have found no statistical bias based on status or firm size. Critics counter that the more significant issue is the cases never brought at all. “It’s the failure to act in the first place that we can’t measure,” observes one legal‑ethics scholar.
Whistleblowers, MPs and Analysts Speak Out
Frustration with the SRA’s inaction has spilled into public view through testimony from whistleblowers, complainants and even Members of Parliament. At a recent legal reform conference, Labour MP Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Lord Hatton) delivered a scathing critique of the regulator’s handling of so-called “lawfare” cases – instances where wealthy or powerful individuals use lawsuits to intimidate critics. He highlighted the SRA’s decision to close a complaint against Discreet Law, a firm that represented Putin ally Yevgeny Prigozhin (head of the Wagner Group mercenaries) in a libel action against a British journalist. Despite Prigozhin being internationally sanctioned and widely reported as Wagner’s leader, “the SRA found no evidence that Discreet Law was aware” of who their client really was, and concluded the case was not a SLAPP (a strategic lawsuit against public participation) . “If this case isn’t a SLAPP, then what exactly is?” the MP asked pointedly. He called the SRA’s inaction “astounding” and said it “shows how inadequate our current regulatory framework is” . In Parliament and across the political spectrum, he added, there is “clear consensus” that the SRA must be empowered – or compelled – to be far more bullish in cracking down on such abuses .
Others concur. Dan Neidle, a former City tax lawyer turned campaigner, argues that nothing will change until lawyers genuinely fear the consequences of crossing the line. Right now, he says, there is scant deterrent. Neidle notes that truly “firm, credible sanctions” from the SRA would change behaviour overnight – implying that up to now, those credible consequences have been lacking . He has urged the regulator to issue tougher guidance and to punish solicitors who pursue frivolous or malicious claims without verifying basic facts (as in the Prigozhin case, where the claim – that he wasn’t Wagner’s leader – was patently false) .
Meanwhile, people who lodge complaints against solicitors describe a bewildering process that often goes nowhere. I experienced this first‑hand: after filing a misconduct complaint against a regional firm, I later obtained internal SRA emails showing that key evidence I provided was never reviewed by the caseworker. An independent reviewer admitted the oversight yet still upheld the decision to close the case. To many complainants, such outcomes reinforce a sense that the SRA “marks its own homework.”
Even when the SRA does act, it is often perceived as slow and hesitant. After a scandal involving a Magic Circle firm’s handling of sexual harassment complaints, the SRA took years before issuing fines. In the interim, investigative journalists and MPs had already exposed the issues in public. “It shouldn’t require a Panorama documentary or a parliamentary debate to get the SRA to wake up,” one whistleblower from that case lamented.
From Parliament to the press, the chorus is growing louder: the legal regulatory regime “lacks teeth” and needs urgent reform. Complainants warn that vulnerable clients and litigants in person – those without means or representation – are most at risk when solicitors behave unethically. They have the most to lose from a regulator that appears “intent on doing nothing” in response to credible allegations of wrongdoing. “The SRA’s disciplinary process can be bewildering to outsiders,” observes an independent complaints reviewer, noting that many feel the SRA fails to take their concerns seriously or explain its reasoning . Each high-profile failure – each Axiom Ince or Prigozhin case – further erodes confidence that the public will be protected from legal bad actors.
Other Professions, Other Outcomes
Is the SRA uniquely ineffective, or are lawyers simply held to a different standard than other professionals? A comparative look suggests that regulators in other fields tend to respond more decisively to similar misconduct.
In medicine, for instance, dishonesty is often a career-ending offense. When famed gastroenterologist Andrew Wakefield was found to have acted unethically and dishonestly in his discredited MMR vaccine research, the General Medical Council struck him off the medical register in 2010 . Doctors have been stripped of their licences for falsifying resumes or expense claims – even minor fraud can lead to erasure, on the principle that probity is paramount in maintaining patient trust. “Dishonesty… is viewed more seriously than a one-off medical error,” notes one NHS consultant; it’s seen as a fundamental character flaw incompatible with the privilege of practising medicine.
Accountancy offers another point of contrast. The Financial Reporting Council (FRC), which regulates auditors, has in recent years levied record fines on major firms for misconduct or negligence. In 2023, KPMG was fined £21 million over “exceptional” failures in the Carillion audit scandal . And in 2024, the FRC penalised PwC and EY a combined £9.3 million for inadequate audits of a collapsed investment firm – the largest-ever fine imposed on EY in the UK . These eye-watering penalties send a clear message that even the most prestigious companies will face harsh consequences for wrongdoing. By comparison, law firms in England and Wales have faced nothing of this magnitude from their regulator. The SRA until recently could only impose a maximum fine of £2,000 on traditional law firms without referring the case to a tribunal . (That limit was raised to £25,000 in 2022, after government intervention .) Multi-million pound fines simply aren’t in the SRA’s toolkit – and to date, no law firm has been hit with anything remotely comparable to the penalties seen in finance or accounting.
Looking abroad, legal regulators in other jurisdictions appear more willing to wield the axe. In the United States, for example, state bar associations routinely disbar attorneys who commit serious fraud or crimes involving dishonesty. Recent disciplinary reports from Illinois show lawyers being disbarred immediately following felony fraud convictions . One attorney was struck off after defrauding a hospital of $622,000 ; another lost his licence upon pleading guilty to securities fraud . The expectation is that any lawyer caught stealing from clients or lying for personal gain will be swiftly removed from practice, often long before any prison sentence is served. In New York, “automatic disbarment” is triggered by a felony conviction – there’s no protracted wrangling over sanctions.
By contrast, in England and Wales solicitors can continue practising while under prolonged SRA investigation, and if the case never reaches the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, they may never face a public hearing at all. Only a few dozen solicitors are struck off each year out of the tens of thousands on the roll . This disparity raises uncomfortable questions: Are English solicitors inherently better behaved, or are many offences simply never punished? To many critics, the answer lies not in better behavior but in weaker enforcement.
Does the SRA Strike Fear – or Shrugs?
All of this leads to a crucial question: Do solicitors and law firms genuinely fear SRA discipline? Increasingly, the answer seems to be no – especially among the well-heeled echelons of the profession. Lawyers interviewed for this investigation describe the regulator as “mostly a paperwork exercise” and “not something that keeps partners awake at night”. The chances of a powerful solicitor being seriously sanctioned still appear remote, in the eyes of many practitioners. As evidence, they point to cases like the Prigozhin libel saga, where a firm faced no penalty for what MPs called an abuse of process . They cite the fact that the SRA’s internal fines (even now capped at £25k) pale in comparison to big firm revenues, making them more symbolic slap on the wrist than true deterrent. And they observe that when misconduct is found, the SRA often opts for “Agreed Outcomes” – essentially plea deals behind closed doors – that can result in minimal publicity and penalties.
Official figures bear out some of these perceptions. In 2021/22, the SRA opened 49 investigations into SLAPP lawsuits and dozens more into dubious investment schemes – yet by the end of that year, not a single solicitor had been struck off or even fined in connection with those cases (many were closed with informal advice or no action) . Overall, of the 808 complaints about solicitors that the SRA closed in that period, 57% were dismissed at the initial assessment stage without a formal investigation . With odds like that, a solicitor facing a complaint might reasonably bet on the matter never going anywhere.
On the other hand, for rank-and-file lawyers – especially those from minority backgrounds or smaller firms – there can be a very real fear of the regulator. The SRA has not hesitated to strike off junior solicitors for relatively small-scale dishonesty (such as altering a document or overcharging a client) when proven, and such individuals lack the resources to fight prolonged tribunal battles. Representatives of the Junior Lawyers Division (JLD) have voiced concern that younger, less powerful solicitors feel “hung out to dry” by SRA investigations, while more senior figures seem to escape scrutiny. “The culture of fear is real – but it’s felt by the wrong people,” one JLD spokesperson said, arguing that the current system breeds fear in the vulnerable while failing to inspire respect in the powerful.
Calls for Reform and Accountability
The mounting criticism has not gone unnoticed by oversight bodies. The Legal Services Board – essentially the SRA’s regulator – has taken the unprecedented step of initiating formal enforcement action against the SRA’s leadership in the wake of the Axiom Ince affair . This could result in the SRA being placed under special measures, with performance targets and closer monitoring . Regulators regulating the regulator is a rare move, underscoring the severity of the situation. “The SRA’s actions and omissions have… adversely impacted confidence and trust in the regulation of legal services,” LSB chair Alan Kershaw said bluntly.
In Parliament, cross-party support is growing for anti-SLAPP legislation and tougher oversight to ensure lawyers who facilitate egregious litigation tactics are held to account . There are also calls to revisit the SRA’s funding and governance model to insulate it from professional influence – suggestions include moving to a wholly independent funding mechanism or giving the LSB more direct control when systemic issues arise. Some campaigners have even floated the nuclear option: disbanding the SRA and creating a new regulator from scratch, one that would not carry the baggage of the Law Society (from which the SRA was separated in 2006) and its clubby networks.
For the SRA’s part, its leaders insist they are committed to reform. They highlight ongoing reviews into consumer protection failings and promise to “put our house in order” in areas flagged by the LSB . They note that major fraud or dishonesty cases often also involve criminal proceedings, which can slow down regulatory action or make immediate intervention complex. “We will not seek to take enforcement action [against a firm] that has run into problems but shows the willingness and capability to work with us to put things right,” the SRA explained in a policy statement – a stance aimed at encouraging remediation, though critics worry it sounds too forgiving.
As these debates continue, those on the receiving end of solicitor misconduct remain in limbo. For litigants in person, a predatory lawyer on the opposing side can be life-ruining – and if they cannot rely on the regulator to step in, the scales of justice tip even further against them. Vulnerable clients who entrust life savings or sensitive matters to a solicitor have to hope their chosen professional isn’t one of the bad actors operating under the SRA’s radar. Each story of fraud unchecked or dishonesty unpunished chips away at the reputation of all lawyers.
One veteran legal analyst compares the situation to a famous Sherlock Holmes story about “the dog that didn’t bark.” In case after case, the SRA was the dog that stayed silent when alarm was called for. Now, with its own credibility on the line, the SRA faces intense pressure to finally bare its teeth. The legal profession’s self-policing model, and the public’s faith in it, will depend on whether this watchdog can learn to bark – and bite – in the face of wrongdoing, no matter how powerful the wrongdoers may be.
Sources (selected):
- Legal Services Board independent review into Axiom Ince collapse.
- Reuters coverage and court filings relating to Axiom Ince.
- Legal Futures analysis of SRA complaints‑handling.
- Parliamentary debate on SLAPP lawsuits (Hansard, 2024).
- Financial Reporting Council disciplinary decisions, 2023‑24.
- General Medical Council decision in Wakefield (2010).
- Illinois and New York attorney disciplinary reports, 2023.
Disclaimer: This report is for information only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should obtain professional advice before acting on any matter discussed.