Status

This guidance explains the approach we take when deciding whether to publish regulatory and disciplinary decisions.

This guidance should be read in the context of:

• How we make decisions and the criteria we apply
• SRA enforcement strategy
• SRA first principles of disclosure
• The SRA's approach to financial penalties.

Who is this guidance for?

All SRA-regulated firms, their managers, role holders and employees, all solicitors, registered European lawyers (RELs) or registered foreign lawyers (RFLs).

Why do we publish regulatory and disciplinary decisions?

We act in the public interest. This includes providing appropriate protection for consumers and supporting the administration of justice and the rule of law. There is a clear public interest here. We want to be transparent about the decisions we make, and why we have made them, in order to:

• maintain public confidence by demonstrating appropriate action is taken when things go wrong
• raise awareness amongst those we regulate about the action we have taken, to improve understanding of our expectations, and deter them from any engaging in conduct that would fall below our standards or breach our requirements
• make sure consumers and others - including prospective employers – can access appropriate information to:
  • inform them if we have closed a firm
  • make informed choices about who to instruct, work with or employ
  • decide whether other behaviour of concern should be reported to us for action
• make sure we are properly accountable to the public for the decisions we make and show we are acting proportionately and consistently.

The principles underpinning our approach to publication of regulatory and disciplinary decisions

Our purpose as the regulator of solicitors in England and Wales is to protect the public. In addition, The Legal Services Act 2007 (LSA) sets out regulatory objectives which we must make sure our work is compatible with. We consider the following four objectives to be particularly relevant to our approach to publishing regulatory decisions:

• Protecting and promoting the public interest
• Protecting and promoting the interests of consumers
• Encouraging an independent, strong, diverse, and effective legal profession
• Promoting and maintaining adherence to the professional principles

The LSA also sets out the following overarching principles we must adhere to in the delivery of all our regulatory activities. These are more commonly known as the 'better regulation' principles and place duties on us to be:

• Transparent
• Accountable
• Proportionate
• Consistent
• Targeted

We will publish information that is relevant to understanding the nature of a regulatory decision, and why it was reached, unless there is a good reason not to. In publishing regulatory and disciplinary decisions, we aim to be:

• transparent about the regulatory decisions we make, publishing information related to regulatory decisions or arising from investigations where it is in the public interest to do so. By doing this we encourage the profession to uphold the highest professional standards and help consumers of legal services make informed choices. To maintain transparency where matters are sensitive or confidential, we will seek to redact or reduce information rather than to remove decisions entirely.
• accountable for the regulatory decisions we take by promptly making them - and the reasons we have made them - available to both the public and those we regulate. We publish our approach to publication on our website so that the public and those we regulate understand how we approach our regulatory decision-making role and responsibilities.
• proportionate in what information we make available, considering any relevant factors which might indicate that we should withhold publication or redact/reduce information available about a regulatory decision. We recognise that people are at the centre of our regulatory decisions, and we will consider the impact any publication will have on a regulated individual, including any impacts on their mental health and wellbeing, balanced against our overarching role to protect the public.
• consistent in what information we publish about the regulatory decisions we make, and how we present that information, to a high quality, on our website. We take a consistent approach to making decisions to withhold information about our regulatory decisions from the public, in exceptional circumstances, if there is a good reason to do so.

What decisions do we publish?

Our Roll, Registers and Publication Regulations set out the types of regulatory and disciplinary decisions that we publish on our website.

Many of these decisions are made under our Regulatory and Disciplinary Procedure Rules. These rules provide that we will publish such decisions, unless we consider the particular circumstances outweigh the public interest in publication.

The types of regulatory and disciplinary decisions we publish include:

• authorisation of individuals and firms
• any current suspension, for example, of a solicitor's practising certificate or a firm's authorisation
• rebukes of individuals
• financial penalties imposed on an individual or on a firm
• disqualification of a person from acting as a role holder – for example, a manager
• imposition of conditions on individuals or authorised bodies
• issuing of proceedings against a solicitor before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT), where the SDT has certified that there is a case to answer
• any other order made by the SDT
• the exercise of our powers of intervention.

We might also publish other information if we consider that it helps us meet the regulatory objectives. For example, we may publish:

• decisions to approve the employment of struck off or suspended solicitors, under section 41 of the Solicitors Act 1974, or people who are subject to section 43 of the Solicitors Act 1974, which prohibits non-solicitors from working in a regulated firm without our permission, or,
• decisions to refuse to issue a practising certificate.

We might also publish other information about our work and key decisions where we consider it is in the public interest, such as the status of our ongoing investigations.

Publishing findings of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal

The SDT is an independent tribunal. Its findings are published on its own website. Once the SDT has made an order, we will update the regulatory record and link to the SDT's website. The types of orders it makes can be seen here. It also publishes information about its sanctions and fining bands.

Following its consideration of a matter, the SDT may make a final finding that there has not been misconduct. However in some situations we might have identified additional risks, and may decide that a condition imposed separately and before we referred the matter to the SDT needs to remain in place, and therefore remain published.

When will we publish decisions?

We will normally publish decisions promptly. Many of the decisions we make are subject to review, such as disciplinary sanctions and conditions. Generally, we will not publish such decisions during the period in which a review can be requested, and until any review has been determined or withdrawn. When matters are referred to the SDT, it may be that the SDT's hearing commences or completes before the end of a period in which a review can be requested, and before we have published our decision.

When we close down (intervene) into a firm, it is important to let the clients know the firm has closed as soon as possible, so we aim to publish such decisions promptly following the intervention.

We might determine that it is not appropriate to publish the decision at the time it was made, for example, if this will risk prejudicing any ongoing proceedings. But we might then do so later once those proceedings have concluded, or the risk is no longer material.

In exceptional cases, we may publish the fact of a referral to the SDT prior to certification by them, or publish details of an ongoing investigation, if we consider it is in the public interest for us to do so. For example:

• where there is a risk of misinformation entering the public domain, such as when a respondent individual or third-party might brief the media
• where there is a high-profile case which is subject to public discussion and a vacuum of detail from the regulator would be against the public interest, such as an issue subject to a government inquiry
• where there is an intervention or other action that highlights an issue that is likely to affect a significant number of people and it is in the public interest that this is made known, including so they might take appropriate action to reduce any negative impacts

What information do we publish?

For all types of decision, we will usually include a short statement of the decision with brief factual details, such as where the person is currently working or was previously working, and the reasons for the decision.

Our decisions are presented consistently and in clear and accessible language. Our decisions contain:

• a summary of the decision at the top, to allow the reader to see immediately what the decision is.
• enough information in the body of the decision to allow the reader to understand the facts of the misconduct or issue, the outcome and how the decision was reached.

When our decision is to impose a fine on an individual, the published decision usually includes the level of the fine and the percentage of the individual's income taken into account.

When we impose a fine on a firm, the published decision usually includes the level of the fine and the percentage of the firm's annual domestic turnover taken into account.

We take reasonable steps to avoid the publication of information relating to other identifiable persons. Where it is necessary to refer to clients or colleagues their details will be appropriately anonymised.

When might we withhold publication of a decision?

Generally, there is a presumption in favour of publishing the regulatory and disciplinary decisions covered in our rules. These will be published on our website as it is in the public interest for us to do so. There are also circumstances where we must publish a decision due to statutory requirements, such as certain decisions about licensed bodies and individuals working within them.

Each decision to publish will be taken on its own merits and we consider all the relevant circumstances. With the exception of some intervention decisions, we will generally give the regulated person or firm the opportunity to comment in advance on whether the recommended outcome should be published. We take their views, and those of any other relevant third parties, into account when deciding whether to publish and will tell them our decision.

To meet our duty to act in the public interest, we seek to redact or anonymise any information that cannot be published. This might be where information is confidential, legally privileged, or might prejudice other investigations or legal proceedings. For example, information about an individual's health will often be confidential.

We also seek to redact or anonymise information where this helps us strike the right balance between the impact on an individual and the public interest in publication. For example, we might redact sensitive personal information, or information that could enable a reader to calculate an individual's salary, where the individual has demonstrated that putting this information into the public domain would cause them significant harm.

We only consider not publishing a decision at all in exceptional circumstances. These circumstances are likely to be:

• when it is not practicable to redact the necessary information from the decision
• where the publication of the decision (even with redactions) is likely to have a disproportionate impact on health, safety or presents a risk to life
• if publication might prejudice ongoing civil or criminal proceedings.

It is unlikely that we will withhold publication or anonymise information solely because it may result in:

• a loss of income or custom
• negative impacts for staff such as redundancies
• embarrassment or reputational impacts.

Example

We rebuke a solicitor following a court finding that they contravened section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986 by threatening abuse and using insulting words in public. The solicitor provides medical evidence to us which confirms that the stress of the publication of the rebuke will cause risks to the solicitor's life.

The solicitor confirms that their employer is aware of the conviction and has supported them to move out of the criminal defence department to the firm's conveyancing department while they receive medical support to address personal issues.

Taking these factors into account, we decide that publication is not in the public interest. The solicitor confirms to us that they will inform any new employers about the sanction against them and will notify us if their work arrangements change during the next three years. Our publication decision does not impact or change our decision to rebuke the solicitor.

When and to whom might we disclose information about a decision, even if we have not published it?

We will consider disclosing information outside of published decisions on a case-by-case basis and in line with our disclosure policy. This may be, for example, to comply with a court order, to provide information to another regulator or law enforcement agency in line with an information sharing agreement, or in response to a request from an insurer, lender, potential employer, or client.

How long do we publish a decision for?

It is important that our decisions, including the sanctions and controls we impose, are in the public domain for sufficient time to:

• make sure that we are transparent and properly accountable for the decisions that we make
• uphold standards through promoting understanding of unacceptable behaviours and the consequences of non-compliance with our rules
• uphold public confidence by showing that the profession is regulated appropriately
• protect the public by providing visibility about restrictions and conditions on the right to practice
• allow consumers to make informed choices.

We consider that the more serious the breach, and any related sanction or control, the greater the impact publication might have on the above choices and perceptions. Therefore, the length of publication for a sanction or control differs based on the severity of that sanction or control.

We publish all decisions that result in a sanction or control resulting from a regulatory breach for a minimum of three years. This takes into account that even the lowest sanctions, for example rebukes, will only be issued where there has been a serious breach. We also include information on our registers about the status of any firms, for example if their authorisation has been suspended or revoked. This is so that it is clear to the public what the status of a firm is.

In respect of decisions we make about licensed bodies (also known as alternative business structures), their owners, or employees, we are required by our regulator, the Legal Services Board, to provide specific information on our public register of licensed bodies.

Decision publication periods

Prior to June 2025 we published most of our regulatory decisions for three years, apart from certain sanctions such as strike offs ordered by the SDT that were published for longer periods.

We updated our decision publication periods on June 2025. We describe our sanctions and controls below and we confirm how long we may publish each one for. The updated publication criteria found below apply to our publication of regulatory decisions that we and/or the SDT take from June 2025 onwards.

The updated publication criteria will not apply retrospectively to any decisions that we and/or the SDT had taken prior to June 2025, irrespective of whether or not we have already published those decisions.

Please note that the SDT has its own publication policy that includes varying publication periods for outcome types, with a maximum of 60 years for a strike off. The SRA and SDT also operate different bands for financial penalties and apply different criteria when deciding whether to issue rebukes and reprimands. We update regulatory records and publish links to the SDT website as relevant.

When we might remove published decisions from our website

We might review or amend decisions from our website where we consider that publication is no longer necessary in the public interest, or to correct or update the information. For example, we will update the summary of allegations to be made at the SDT if it agrees to make an amendment to those allegations, and as a result the published summary is inaccurate.

If we are asked to remove a decision from publication because of new information or a change in circumstances, we will consider if this is appropriate on a case-by-case basis. In doing so, we will have regard to all the circumstances and consider the request in line with the factors relating to the decision to publish set out above. Individuals should contact us if they wish to provide new information, or details of a change in circumstances, so that we can consider whether decisions we have made and that are currently published on our website should be removed. relating to decisions that we made and are currently publishing. If the new information or the change in circumstances relates to a decision that is currently published but was made by the SDT, individuals should contact the SDT before asking us to remove the decision from our website.

Further help

If you require further assistance, please contact the Professional Ethics Guidance helpline.