Solicitors Regulation Authority レビュー 

I am leaving this review to warn others, particularly disabled people, about how reasonable adjustments and accountability has been treated in practice by the SRA.

In our case, an autistic and disabled individual requested a reasonable adjustment to allow him to independently record what was said during a complaints hearing, due to cognitive and processing difficulties and autis to review at own pace later. He did not want to rely on another person to do this for him,

The adjustment was refused following legal advice, with alternatives suggested such as bringing a companion or relying on official minutes. Those minutes took months to be provided and contained gaps, meaning the proposed alternative was ineffective in practice, Under the Equality Act, reasonable adjustments are intended to enable disabled people to participate independently. Suggesting that a companion or third party could take notes is not a substitute for an adjustment that allows the individual themselves to access and process what is said.

We sought independent legal advice and were advised that there were multiple faults, and we were initially preparing to pursue court action. However, this became impossible alongside a SEND tribunal and multiple ongoing failures that required our constant attention. The SRA nevertheless relied on the absence of a court finding and declined to investigate, stating that the decision was taken by the client. The SRA also appeared to place weight on the absence of deliberate intent, even though reasonable adjustments are about effect and access, not motivation.

In my opinion, this leaves disabled people without meaningful regulatory protection unless they are able to sustain litigation, and it has significantly undermined my confidence in the SRA as a regulator acting in the public interest.

Beyond the disability issue, I raised several additional concerns, all of which were declined on the basis that they were the client’s decisions, matters for other bodies, or issues for the courts. This reinforced my impression that responsibility can always be deflected away from regulated solicitors.

I agree with all the reviews on here. A complete waste of time. I complained to them about a solicitor giving them all the evidence that they needed and they have not acted on my behalf. They protect the solicitors. Furthermore, they are so slow with their processes and they don't reply to email. Shame. A pointless service.

During an employment dispute, the agency I was working with had a random guy write to me, as the "in-house counsel". I asked the guy for his SRA number to check his credentials. He said he doesn't have one and alarm bells rang. I called the SRA and they confirmed that the guy used to be a solicitor until 2010 when he was struck off and left under a cloud. I reported him to the SRA, as per their own instructions and...after a while, some Investigation Officer at the SRA (I won't give his name) got back to me and said that following "careful consideration, they will take no further action", basically condoning fraud and criminality. I thought the SRA scope and purpose is to protect us from people impersonating solicitors, like a line of defence against these rogue, cowboy, fraudster "solicitors". Disappointed is NOT the word!

There is no "authority" or proper regulation here, and the way they contradict their declarations is bizarre. I have found that whatever it takes in terms of convolution of argument and explanation - and no matter what legal advisers have recommended - the SRA will bring a conclusion to a complaint from an individual that absolves the firm that was reported.
When I compared treatment from a solicitor against SRA guidelines, it was absolutely clear that the solicitor had contravened a specific rule. I reported them to the SRA, and I explained my reasons. The solicitor apologised immediately and paid compensation. The SRA on the other hand, neglected their own rules, wouldn't support me, and wouldn't review their stance. It's extraordinary, but it seems they're funded by solicitors / law firms, so I suppose they never want to rock the boat or find against them. In a newer complaint, again the matter was rejected and this time the bizarre nature of the rejections seemed to be because I had reported the same firm before. That is, as far as I can tell, it was personal. The SRA didn't want my correspondence even though something else arose and looked very wrong.

Agree, with the others. You will get no justice from the SRA. It’s a one-way submission forum for settlement. Legislators should act.

The SRA is a British mafia-style organisation. Complaints about Capsticks Solicitors’ illegal, aggressive actions and the hiding of evidence keep coming in one after another — yet nothing is done about actions that violate their own SRA regulations. Well, yes — the SRA has a three-year contract with Capsticks Solicitors to ensure that even the SRA’s illegalities remain hidden.
An organisation like this has no place in Europe as a professional legal body — it couldn’t even operate in a third-world dictatorship.”

Monsters from hell. They deserve no stars. This is a waste of public service and money. Every single one of them are racist, thieves , bullies and evil. All of them are cowards. They are scared of lawyers and firms.

Don’t bother contacting this fraudulent company. Full of lies and they do not investigate anything other than cover the backside of these illegal firms and solicitors.

Government: Please close down this illegal company.

Solicitors Regulation Authority has stated all Solicitors frms should respond to all reviews - ‘particularly negative ones’ - that have been published online.

However, per all the Trustpilot reviews below, the Solicitors Regulation Authority has not responded to any of the reviews.

Same old, do as I say, not as I do...

Appalling investigation which did not show any due consideration of the facts presented. The waiting time is bad enough but then to be treated to such a dismissive response, I find as others have found. It is not a regulator and upholds the appalling state of our judicial system.

If organisations cannot rule against matters under the EQA 2010 and leaves the only option for the courts when the court system is in meltdown, what is the point of the PSED duty if not upheld?

Our case, Claire Porter refused to act as Monitoring Officer on a complaint against our local Town Council who had refused to act under pre-action protocols of the CPR 1998. Not only did this council not respond to a letter before claim but did not respond to an invitation to ADR, also now required.

The SRA found no conflict of interest when this officer under the same conditions as that of the Town Council had refused to respond to pre-action protocols and ADR in correct manner. Clearly if she upheld the complaint against the Town Council, this would apply to her conduct as well. The answer from the SRA- no conflict.

Regulators in the UK are mostly appalling and need to be scrapped. They waste a considerable amount of tax-payer money and seem to uphold poor standards especially in law. The Legal Ombudsman is as bad as the SRA.

I have already left a review a couple of years ago about the appalling and incompetent investigation by the SRA. My case involved a legally aided criminal firm that I worked for and the wife of the partner of that firm (employed by the same firm of Solicitors) committed fraud and I supplied an overwhelming amount of evidence plus a retired Chief Inspector and a retired police officer of the Police force were prepared to give a statement and attend any Hearing to give evidence in support of my claims. None of this was taken up and eventually the SRA confirmed their investigation fell woefully short of what was expected and apologised to me. By this time they had cleared my colleague and I was then able to supply new and irrefutable evidence in that same case and yet again the assigned investigator failed in her investigation when the case came up for review. As time has gone on, this is less about my ex-colleague committing fraud but more about the SRA having no accountability to anyone. I have liaised with my local MP who was excellent but could only confirm that the SRA are not accountable to anyone and she further furnished me with another apology from the SRA. I have since found a journalist who did a scathing report on the SRA and I wrote to him hoping he would take the matter up but alas I heard nothing from him. I wrote to reporters for a national tabloid who had done a story similar to my experience but I heard nothing from them either. I seem to recall when I posted my original review that someone had posted that some form of petition/or group were forming to take the SRA to task over their inadequacies, incompetence and non-accountability. The irony in my case is I lost my job after 48 years due to the fact my ex-colleague was my employers' wife and I indicated that she was dishonest and untrustworthy. She is still gainfully employed and I only lost my job as a consequence of her wrongdoing which was then totally supported by the SRA. If anyone knows of any organisation that is trying to have the SRA both investigated and being accountable I would be grateful for that information. Thanks in anticipation.

I could relate to many of the reviews written by others.
These so-called regulatory bodies are nothing more than Old Boys Clubs masquerading as supervisory authorities.

SRA exists only to protect the rest of the clique and waste your time by going through the motions before fobbing you off.
Not surprising when you consider that the legal profession is one of the most unscrupulous.

I reported a solicitor who sent me an unsolicited, 5 page tirade to intimidate me at the behest of another equally unscrupulous outfit, the NHS aka state-sponsored killing machine. They were so terrified I might go public with the corruption, negligence and incompetence I'd exposed, they set this puffed - up little solicitor on me.

His tirade went on and on about how I'd get nowhere if I took the matter further, despite the fact I'd never made any noises about a claim.

It was harassment pure and simple. But according to SRA this little chest-beating harasser did nothing wrong.

So far 3 crooked solicitors have been reported to this Regulatory body over the course of 3 years but it's been shambolic and a comical outfit that needs to be deleted as a not-fit-for-purpose body. Bear in mind that these so-called solicitors - yuck - pay some subscriptions to have them essentially protect the rogues!

Based on my personal experience, the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has shamelessly and proudly fallen short in properly investigating and addressing serious allegations of misconduct by certain solicitors.

Specifically, I have provided detailed evidence of unprofessional and potentially criminal behaviour by "solicitors" of sorts like AS (Beverley Morris then Ewings) and AG (Elite Law), including the tampering of a court-approved legal document. However, the SRA's conclusions in these cases have been, in my view, woefully inadequate and have consistently failed to hold these individuals accountable. Its a head-scratcher!

The absolutely rubbish SRA's "Investigators" assigned to my case, G-O and R, has been criticized for lacking the necessary qualifications and expertise to properly assess the detailed evidence I presented to them. Their regurgitative dismissive responses and apparent unwillingness to thoroughly examine the issues I raised are deeply concerning.

These experiences, combined with the SRA's consistently poor Trustpilot rating of 1 out of 5 stars, suggest an organization that may be more focused on protecting solicitors than effectively regulating the profession and safeguarding consumers. Urgent reforms may be needed to address these systemic problems.

That said, I acknowledge that Trustpilot reviews can be subjective, and the SRA's role as a regulatory body comes with inherent challenges. Individuals with specific concerns should continue to pursue formal complaint channels to have their issues properly investigated and addressed. And if they dismiss your complaintsm you should attempt to report them to their new CEO and senior management via here: contactcentre at sra.org.uk.

However, if you have concerns about the conduct or decision-making of SRA investigators themselves, then escalate to the Independent Reviewer of Complaints, external body appointed to review complaints about the SRA’s handling of cases, directly. You can reach the Independent Reviewer by email at complaintsreview at cedr dot com, or by phone at 020 7536 6000. Time to start holding the new CEO Sarah Ropson to account on the appalling service from her shop-floor workers.

Really great. Got me the money back from a Solicitor who wasn't responding after taking my money to write a letter. Also, informed me that the firm was in the process of closing down. Kept me updated throughout process.

⭐☆☆☆☆ Title: How to Look After Your Friends – A Masterclass in Regulatory Evasion

If you're a solicitor firm with reputational baggage, accessibility breaches, or a trail of procedural failures—don’t worry. The SRA has a playbook for that.

This regulator has perfected the art of selective oversight, especially when the firm in question is part of a familiar panel or network. When complaints are raised, expect delays, deflections, and a curious reluctance to engage with documented evidence. Even when psychological harm is confirmed and safeguarding failures are exposed, the response is often: “We’ve reviewed this internally.”

In one case, a Blind disabled claimant brought a grievance against a government department. Lyons Davidson Solicitors assigned to her case had existing ties to that department, raising serious questions about impartiality. Please see my Trustpilot feedback about the firm. Her case was prematurely judged “weak” by a paralegal, without any barrister input. This wasn’t just procedural negligence—it was a conflict of interest, and it denied her the legal scrutiny she was entitled to.

The SRA was informed. Their response? Silence, followed by the removal of public reviews that highlighted the misconduct. Those reviews were later reinstated, but only after external pressure.

Since then, two independent barristers have assessed the case positively, confirming its legal merit. The only barrier now is limitation—caused not by the claimant, but by the institutional delays and deflections that followed.

Thankfully, organisations like Legal Lens are helping to expose these patterns. Their work has amplified public testimony, documented systemic failures, and supported claimants who were previously sidelined. Without their intervention, this case—and many others—might have remained buried.

There is now growing hope that government intervention may follow. With the introduction of the Hillsborough Law – Public Office (Accountability) Act 2025, the statutory Duty of Candour offers a new route to challenge institutional dishonesty and reputational shielding. This law was designed for exactly this kind of regulatory failure—and it may finally bring the scrutiny the SRA has long evaded.

Until then, the message is clear: if you want protection, make sure you’re on the right side of the regulator’s friendships.

another fine example of another body of so called experts getting paid for doing nothing .
NO HELP AT ALL . THEY ARE ALL IN IT TOGETHER>>>>>

Response by SRA here s my publc response.
Do not encourage fake organizations. Stop referring and start taking legal action against solicitors; you don’t need their opinion SRA.

Solicitors who never showed up in court as representation and never investigated have led to severe detrimental conclusions, yet no wrongdoing was found despite clear, extreme evidence of corruption and collusion. The breaches are so numerous that I have lost count. No one has reported these issues, nor has anyone conducted an investigation or assessed me from any organization, public body, or even themselves, who have denied having any records.

There is evidence that solicitors have clearly attempted to "set me up," which has been ignored. At no time did they ever show any evidence of having contacted the relevant parties, nor did they provide any documentation of what they wrote or how they investigated the matters.

The consequences have been extremely serious, putting my life and that of my family at risk. Extreme discrimination is evident due to rational conduct.

In cases referred to the ombudsman, any monetary suggestions made to organizations have never been addressed or followed up, rendering them ineffective and powerless compared to the ombudsman.

A person who was not even involved turned out to be extremely severe against me. I will be bullied or intimidated for reviewing the SRA’s attempts to silence me. This will not work, as I have every right to review them.

I submitted two complaints to the SRA – against Stewart & Co. Solicitors and their insurer Travelers Insurance Company Limited. I provided clear evidence of how I was treated, and these were not isolated incidents. For example:

Stewart & Co. wrote: “We are instructed that you are not entitled to this information” and “There is no need for you to send additional follow up emails”. Such dismissive responses undermine integrity (Rule 1.6) and fail to take account of vulnerability (Rule 3.4).

A solicitor representing Travelers wrote: “we are not aware of any health-related issues that would amount to a disability” and “increase the font size or use text-to-speech software”. Such comments belittle vulnerability, breaching public trust (Rule 1.2) and honesty (Rule 1.6).

Despite this repeated evidence and my vulnerable status, in September 2025 the SRA refused to take any action, excusing themselves by saying I was “not a client”. Yet their own Code of Conduct makes no such exception – solicitors are required to maintain public trust, act with integrity, and protect vulnerable people.

The SRA create these rules, but when it comes to applying them, they ignore them – protecting solicitors and insurers instead of the public.

A complete waste of time. They don’t uphold the reputation of solicitors as they don’t investigate the bad one’s just suggest you get in touch with the legal ombudsman. I didn’t expect much as they are run and paid for by solicitors but I would have felt it fairer if they’d at least investigated my genuine concerns about a solicitor firm. Really poor 😢

I'd give a minus if I could. Just one long run around so far. If this is a government-funded body, then we and the government are being ripped off. So far, the sra has proved utterly useless.

The SRA is not fit for purpose!!

I reported a law firm who were acting for a neighbour against me. The neighbours solicitor ignored my solicitor, continued writing to my home address with threatening letters when they were told I had a solicitor appointed long before my neighbour appointed their solicitor. The neighbours solicitor was told to direct all future correspondence to my solicitor and still carried on writing to my home address to cause harassment at their clients direction. The neighbours solicitor also misled other authorities and still the SRA said the solicitor on the otherside acted in "good faith" towards me and my family. The SRA are worse than useless and they didn't even respond to emails. I agree with other reviews I have read about the SRA, it's about time the Government put an end to nonsense organisations that give lip service and no action. They also took 4 months to investigate my complaint and arrived at the conclusion that my neighbours solicitor wanted them to. It saved the SRA having to do any further investigation and once again the wrong side was feeling triumphant! Well done SRA you useless bunch of idiots. I give you -5 for your efforts to find the truth but don't worry I actually have faith that the Court will serve the necessary justice on my neighbours who have caused criminal damage to my property as a result of their solicitors actions. Fortunately, they can clearly be seen on CCTV destroying my boundary. If you had done your job correctly this would not have taken place. I really hope the SRA becomes redundant because it certainly is a long winded, useless organisation. Perhaps people need to report their issues with law firms to the Law Society directly and give the SRA closure it deserves. 👎