Solicitors Regulation Authority Reviews 

I submitted a detailed complaint supported by documentary evidence alleging breaches of the SRA Principles and Code of Conduct. Rather than investigating the regulatory issues, the SRA largely characterised them as matters for the civil courts.

My complaint concerned the conduct of a regulated firm, not the merits of the underlying dispute. Yet the regulator appeared more willing to defer to the firm's explanations than to scrutinise whether the standards expected of solicitors had been met.

The SRA exists to uphold public confidence in the profession. Based on my experience, its intervention threshold is so high that consumers should have little expectation of meaningful regulatory action, even where credible evidence is presented.

A regulator that is reluctant to regulate risks becoming little more than an observer.

Another rigged government body with feminist attitude towards men. AVOID LIKE THE PLAGUE

Caroline Foster, SRA complaints is utterly useless.

The overwhelmingly poor reviews of the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) speak for themselves and should not be ignored or dismissed. They highlight serious and recurring concerns about the organisation's performance and its handling of complaints.

I have contacted my local Member of Parliament to raise these concerns and will continue to highlight what I consider to be the SRA's failings. The volume and consistency of public criticism suggest that many people have lost confidence in the regulator. Recent Trustpilot reviews, for example, show a very low overall rating and repeated complaints about the SRA's complaint-handling process.

In my view, the SRA has failed to meet the standards that the public is entitled to expect from a professional regulator. That is deeply disappointing and reflects poorly on an organisation entrusted with maintaining confidence in the legal profession.

They didn't even uphold their own rules! 😡 In my opinion they are, at best, unfit for purpose and, at worst, utterly corrupt! 😡

Vipers and huge criminals. Enable solicitors to take advantage of old vulnerable people with disabilities. Beyond belief. Fraudulent, nasty and vile. Otherwise, a totally useless waste of time and money! The SRA exists for no reason other than to protect thieving solicitors, and in any case needs to be disbanded ASAP. I get the sense that they actually have zero power to hold the profession to account. Otherwise they are just simply complicit in criminality!

Solicitors completely ignored my mother’s will and followed their own agenda. Walked off with £500,000 and left me in debt. SRA see no reason to investigate. Solicitors ‘word’ comes first, above and beyond all other evidence. Go to other solicitors, charge me hundreds ‘to look’ at issue, no work done, little to no communication, no cares given. I see a theme.

Today I am in absolute shock.

I have presented indisputable evidence of a law firm, knowingly serving a document they had knowledge was forged. They even have an email with a director of the firm admitting, he was aware that the legally, untouchable document had been altered.
They still declined to investigate and stated that they had seen the firm’s ‘internal reporting’, which was not disclosed to me and I suspect, cooked up and served by the firm in question. Whatever they presented did not alter the evidence I had given them, which beyond a shadow of a doubt, showed that they had knowingly served a forgery.

The SRA, should be immediately defunded and dismantled and built again. It should be staffed by those with legal training at the same level as these crooked solicitors which the SRA, is currently happy to protect.
It operates from a position of lower intellect, compared those it investigates. It has no grasp or interest in the law or any legislation or in being consistent with its totally lame, toothless and outdated ‘seven principles’. These are a list of fantasy concepts which serve no purpose, except to embolden even further these solicitors and firms who are acting at best apathetically and at worst, criminally.
They are completely disinterested in the actual laws governing solicitor behavior. This is ‘civil’ apparently and here in SRA, fantasy land, they can make decisions based on their abject cowardice, ignorance of law, apathy and incompetence. Now they have AI, to help them seem even more legitimate, when they are ignoring their own useless principles and making stupid illogical decisions from the comfort of home. They are adding immeasurably, to the harms already sustained by the victims of these cowboy solicitors. It is also probably the only regulator that gives no opportunity for appeal to a higher authority. Mind you, If they did, have a higher authority, you’d probably have to address your appeal to Satan!

They are essentially using a platform designed for redress to openly support the protectionism, they have for those they are supposed to be investigating.
They are like corrupt police officers, the more they fail to dispense justice, the bigger the problem gets. They are worse than the ones they are supposed to be protecting the public from and every solicitor knows it. This is why the wildfire of these corrupt bad actors in law firms is raging. Consider the SRA to be petrol.

Completely inconsistent service no integrity! No morality zero respect
It’s just a farce dressed up to look like
An independent adjudicator designed to fool the public how can a so called officer of the courts use their powers to ensure compliance with a defendant automatic right to a defence lie hide the fact there’s no evidence all to help police with their set up because the SRA only use their powers to cover everything up I went to court with no defence whilst the hidden company paraded around like they own the place being duty solicitors they were all insuring I had no access to the lack of evidence it was all just to keep me on bail Sra didn’t see anything wrong with their behaviour he just wanted a paper trail or no foul there’s such bad smell
Of corruption all around with abuse of power within this hypocrisy or the Sra
I wouldn’t trust them again and you need to beware they only act for solicitors NOT against them don’t waste your time
On a totally fixed organisation! Even the
The courts are prepared to turn a blind eye to this sort of set up whilst reminding you to turn up for the next fix
And There wonder why people turn their backs on authorities! And have absolutely no interest/ respect/ desire
To help with anything! I mean there’s so
Much unsolved crimes supposedly fewer
Police yet they always have the time to
Set people up?? Makes one wonder exactly what your paying council tax for
Then totally crooked solicitors using the legal aid system to claim money they don’t do anything for! Isn’t that fraudulent??? Yet the sra does nothing
But talk waffles!

Negative stars would be appropriate.

Extremely poor experience with the SRA.

I submitted a detailed complaint about the conduct of a solicitor acting for a public regulator in Administrative Court proceedings. The complaint was not a vague grievance about losing a legal argument. It identified specific concerns about allegedly misleading procedural positions, the handling of a live issued appeal, and disputed appeal-bundle conduct capable of widening the case beyond what had actually been pleaded and determined.

The SRA closed the matter without investigation. In my view, the response was formulaic, evasive and institutionally self-protective. It simply reclassified the complaint as an ordinary litigation disagreement, without properly engaging with the specific conduct concerns or the evidential sequence I had set out.

That is precisely the problem. If a complaint alleges that litigation conduct itself crossed a professional line, it is not an answer to say “this happened in litigation”. That is circular. It allows solicitor conduct in court proceedings to be shielded from meaningful scrutiny merely by labelling it advocacy.

I found the process superficial, defensive and profoundly unsatisfactory. It gave me no confidence that the SRA is willing to scrutinise difficult complaints involving solicitors acting for powerful public bodies. In my view, this was regulatory box-ticking dressed up as oversight.

After the mysterious editing / partial deletion of a continuous CCTV stream from a fixed camera that would have exonerated me from a false and damaging allegation of shoplifting, the SRA took sides with Solicitor X in the head office of a well known supermarket chain.

I needed the full footage, not only to clear my name but to bring a claim for damages. But the footage supplied in response to my Subject Access Request had been deliberately tampered with and partially deleted; the segment showing me entering the store carrying the goods (purchased elsewhere) that I was later accused of stealing had been clumsily edited out. The security guard's bodycam footage also mysteriously "could not be found".

Despite the Information Commissioner upholding my complaint and ruling that the supermarket chain broke the law, the SRA decided that Solicitor X (who was the designated Data Controller) could play the "I know nothing" *innocent face* card with no consequences, and no actual investigation into WHO tampered with the footage and WHY.

It was the legal and professional duty of Solicitor X to obtain and supply me with the full unedited piece of footage covering the whole incident and she categorically failed to do so, negligently and/or dishonestly in my opinion. My SAR was validly made within the prescribed timescale and within the supermarket's CCTV retention period.

Solicitor X's defence - that the vital, missing section of footage had "fallen off the system" - was absurd. The footage was manually edited and partially deleted by a human operator; deliberately and dishonestly in my opinion, in order to scupper my threatened legal action for damages (false imprisonment, etc.)

Well done SRA for protecting one of your own, and leaving an innocent member of the public high and dry.

It's rather an odd and troubling situation when the Information Commissioner says the law has been broken, but the SRA finds no wrongdoing by the Solicitor who was personally in charge and responsible for the whole matter.

Absolutely corrupt organisation, completely unfit for purpose and should be disbanded urgently. Protecting corrupt and lying so called legal professionals. 2 complaints, was both advised by my KC they will never take action and he was right. Put complete spin on one and ignored the reality of the other. They are only interested in trying to dispel or spin complaints to suit their agenda, protect at all costs dodgy lying individuals and their corrupt firms.

I raised a complaint about a solicitor firm to the SRA for a breach of data protection and unlawful actions. After spending over an hour filling out their lengthy forms and providing evidence, all I got was a response saying they cannot investigate, it’s a “matter for the court,” and that I should contact the ICO.

A breach of the Data Protection Act is a serious offence, yet neither the police, the SRA, nor the ICO will investigate. If they simply wrote on their website, “We cannot do it,” at least people wouldn’t waste their time filling out forms. Truly a shameful response from the SRA.

I am extremely dissatisfied with the way the Solicitors Regulation Authority handles public enquiries.

I contacted them to verify a very straightforward matter: whether an individual acting in legal proceedings and presenting himself as a “trainee solicitor” is genuinely registered and authorised. Despite providing clear details, including an SRA number, I was not given a direct answer to any of the key questions namely whether the number exists, who it belongs to, or whether the individual’s stated role is accurate.

Instead, I received generic responses stating that they can only confirm information relating to solicitors on the roll. While this may be technically correct, it completely undermines transparency. If someone is actively involved in legal proceedings and representing a company, there should be a clear and accessible way for the public to verify their status.

The process feels unnecessarily opaque. On one hand, the SRA encourages the public to report concerns and verify legal professionals; on the other, it refuses to disclose even basic confirmation when concerns are raised. This creates a situation where individuals can present themselves with legal titles that are effectively unverifiable by the public.

In my view, this lack of transparency risks eroding trust in the regulatory system. It gives the impression that the organisation is more focused on limiting disclosure than on ensuring accountability.

Overall, a very frustrating and unhelpful experience.

I am really surprised at how the SRA views solicitors’ incompetence and fails to consider the outcome.

I feel like the SRA simply accepts solicitors’ explanations and lets them go. I came to the SRA as my last resort, but I am disappointed.

In my case, the court sent the hearing date notice to the solicitor’s firm via the PCOL system, which is similar to email. The notification should reach the client within a minute. However, my solicitor claims that the notification, which was sent on 14 March, only reached them on 26 March.

They then generated a letter and sent the hearing notice to me by regular post, which I received on 29 March. But my hearing took place on 28 March.

In my absence, the court granted a possession order, which led to an eviction notice.

I attended my first two hearings, and the judge was kind enough to give me more time. At the third hearing, I did not have that opportunity, and this solicitor firm deprived me of a fair chance to attend the hearing.

The SRA investigated this and accepted the solicitor’s explanation that they did not see the notification until 26 March. How is this not incompetence? Why can’t the SRA question TLT on how they failed to see an electronic notification for 12 days?
I understand TLT was working for my Mortgage provider and I am not their direct client, But I am the one was affected .

All government run office are staffed by lazy people who are too engrossed in social media to bother with their jobs.

Not fit for purpose

BTR solicitors have a large county court judgment recorded against their own company name which remains “unsatisfied” trustonline

What a joke of a practise. Apparently the solictors firm i reported replied to my complaint on the 17 December (which they definitely didnt) however the solictors firm sent proof to say they had, I asked for the proof, but nothing! They just side with the corrupt companies! A total waste of time! Don't bother!

Isn't it funny how low the score for this corrupt regulator is, especially as it is supposed to regulate the legal profession, yet as is usual with anything to do with the legal profession, it is corrupt and two tier. Easy to get a result if your rich, or not British, but should you be shafted and be working class or taken advantage of as a disabled person, then the excuses come out to do whatever they can to protect the legal firms, especially when the firm in question is bigger than country wide. As usual with most ombudsman protection of the corrupt status quo and the corrupt legal firms must always come before actual truth and justice, and god forbid that they may actually act against their masters consequently fueling more corruption and bias against those that don't have funds to cover a basic solicitor, let alone a multi national. They claim justice is blind, only if you're rich, for the rest of us it's eyes are wide open, making sure it doesn't allow the big firms to have to take any sort of punishment or god forbid actual accountability for their two tier corruption.

Shocking. In cahoots with the lawyers that they protect, Accountants, Insolvency Practitioners, Asset Recovery Companies, Debt Recovery Companies and lots more. Don’t waste your time making a complaint as they are all in it together.