Solicitors Regulation Authority レビュー 

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. 👎

Another waste of time organisation, the whole country is full of them.

Wished that I had checked Trustpilot before contacting the SRA. A Solicitor and a young Trainee Solicitor employed by the same Solicitors Firm (BB) Both had Impersonated Barristers at a High Court at a hearing on the 22nd October 2024. They Impersonated barristers for two separate Defendants, which is a crime. There were numerous red flags from the first instance in relation to their conduct and behaviour. The SRA had supported them, for what could be easily seen as a 'White Collar Crime.' The fact that two Solicitors Firms BB and HJ openly supported this criminal actions because they are fully aware that the SRA will always support their own.

The SRA is unfortunately as useful as a chocolate teapot. They are completely corrupt, deceptive, incompetent, criminal in their cavalier behaviour and most definitely not fit for purpose. They fully sided with the criminal actions of the two Solicitors who had broken the law at the Royal Courts of Justice. PLEASE NOTE: DO NOT WASTE YOUR VALUABLE TIME AND ENERGY ON THIS HOPELESS ORGANISATION.

Very bad TPF LAW. MY SOL LEFT. AND THE DROPPED. MY. CASE GIVING. ME A TRAINEE. TO. RUIN THINGS.
IVE. REPORTED Director. Of TPF. LAW TO THE SRA. BUT HE STATES. HIS NOT WORRIED. ABOUT. REPORTS TO THE. SRA. SO THAT SIOWS. A RED. FLAG.

Deep Concerns About Delays, Transparency and Conflicts of Interest. Ongoing Complaint not Addresses for over 7 Months.

Loss of Confidence in Paul Philip, CEO of the SRA, and the Law Firm Shakespeare Martineau (SHMA) including its CEO, Sarah Walker Smith.

My first formal complaint to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) addressed directly to Paul Philip, its CEO, was submitted in November 2024, concerning the conduct of law firm Shakespeare Martineau LLP (SHMA).

Over seven months later, the matter remains unresolved, with no meaningful updates, progress, or transparency from the regulator.

The complaint involves multiple serious regulatory issues, including the actions of:

Ms Sarah Walker-Smith, CEO of SHMA.

Mr Kamran Rehman and Mr Michael Mulligan, both former SHMA partners who left the firm on the same day.

Mr Richard Thorpe, current partner and General Counsel at SHMA.

I have written to Mr Philip again today expressing my serious concern over his conduct and that of his organisation.

Among the concerns raised were threatening messages I formerly received from Mr Mulligan, texts that implied acts of violence against a third party and serious data protection failings. Despite the gravity of these matters, I have received no resolution or formal direction from the SRA, only constant and in my view casual extended timescales.

What is most troubling is that Mr Richard Thorpe, while the subject of an active complaint to the SRA regarding his conduct toward me and my former firm, is also publicly described by SHMA as someone who “acts on behalf of the SRA” in legal interventions. This raises a glaring conflict of interest.

I find it unacceptable that someone under investigation by the SRA can:

Communicate directly with a complainant on a live regulatory matter.

Represent the very regulatory body tasked with assessing his conduct.

No safeguards have been explained. No conflict protocol has been disclosed. I only discovered this dual role through my own research in recent weeks, not via any SRA disclosure.

In response, I have escalated the matter to:

John Edwards, CEO of the ICO.

Catherine Brown, CEO of the Legal Services Board.

I have asked for independent oversight to restore fairness and public confidence.

Separately, I recently posted a Trustpilot review about SHMA. The firm sought to have that post removed. Trustpilot rejected their request and my review remains live.

The SRA’s lack of urgency, procedural confusion, and apparent indifference to conflicts of interest have seriously undermined my trust in its regulatory ability.

These are not just technical oversights, they go to the heart of legal integrity, accountability and public protection.

I remain hopeful that, with external intervention, this matter will finally receive the attention and impartial scrutiny it demands.

Until then, I believe the public has a right to be aware of what I am experiencing.

John Clifford

Update
17/07/2025

Another email sent to Paul Philip, CEO of the SRA this morning expressing deep concern about :

the ongoing nature of my complaints, which are now eight months old, with no end in sight and only emails being received referring to ever lengthening timescales

the conflict with Mr Thorpe addressing a DSAR request made by myself to SHMA, when he himself is under investigation with the SRA

the fact that Mr Thorpe continues to act for the SRA whilst being the subject of an active investigation with the SRA

the lack of what appears to be independent and competence with the SRA, particularly in light of the Axiom Ince scandal, for which the SRA were investigated by the Legal Services Board

I feel matters are being covered up both inside SHMA and the SRA and I have made this clear in my representations to Mr Philip, the CEO of the SRA

I am submitting a dossier on the case to legal media today, including Roll on Friday.

I will add updates to this post until the matter is resolved.

Update
24/07/2025

I agree with other reviewers about their service. They are a waste of public money. I hope the government gets rid of them. In their response about Haworth & Gallagher solicitors they said the breach wasn’t serious enough for them to investigate. How serious does it need to be? They are a pointless organisation. Closing them down would help the government save a lot of money!

For anyone who was dealing with this shit show of a company

Gareth Webb & Co LLP, a law firm based in Yeovil, has been closed down by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) due to suspected dishonesty on the part of one of its managers, Katherine Louise Mickler, and non-compliance with the firm's license terms. Here are some key points about the situation:

- Reason for Closure: The SRA intervened on June 6, 2025, to protect the interests of the firm's clients or former clients, citing reasons such as suspected dishonesty and license non-compliance.

- Impact on Clients:

The closed firm can no longer act for its clients, who will need to find new solicitors to handle their cases. Clients can contact Shakespeare Martineau's Interventions Team for assistance with transferring their files and retrieving any documents or money held by the firm.

- Complaints Process: Clients with complaints about the service provided by Gareth Webb & Co LLP should contact the Legal Ombudsman directly.

- File and Money Retrieval: Clients can request their files and any money held by the firm by contacting Shakespeare Martineau or the SRA. The SRA will attempt to return any money owed to clients, and those who urgently need funds can apply to the Compensation Fund for assistance.

If you're looking for more information or need assistance with a matter related to Gareth Webb & Co LLP, you can

- Contact Shakespeare Martineau's Interventions Team: 0300 247 2470

- Visit the SRA's website for guidance on interventions and the complaints process

- Reach out to the Legal Ombudsman for complaints-related inquiries: 0300 555 0333

I reached out to the Legal Ombudsman over 20 months ago regarding this firm and Ms Mickler and to date it is still waiting for an investigator to be appointed... Fuming doesn't even begin to cover how I'm currently feeling.

We even complained to the SRA who also dismissed our concerns.

There needs to be a better system to protect beneficiaries that doesn't potentially bankrupt them if they need to fight so called professionals...

How could they not know after chasing a 20 month old complaint that they recently pushed back yet another 3 months, what was actually happening?
The actions of Ms Mickler were also brought to the attention of the SRA who also dismissed our concerns.

Legal Ombudsman and SRA allowed this to happen through lack of action and the latters dismissive attitude.

I'd like to know at what point you knew there was an issue with this firm?

Absolutely Useless.
Totally ignored irrefutable evidence supported by documentation but chose to accept (without checking)
Untruths from the solicitor. Not fit for purpose. Letting solicitors get away with murder.
Contact me if you would like to see the evidence.
Martin Allatt..

I think it is fair to say that the SRA are out to protect Solititors Praxtices rather than the clients. Not fit for purpose, is not independent or impartial and allows poor practices and services to continue from dishonourable, unethical dishonest profiteers. It serves those who can afford extortionate fees, discourages the poir because legal aide does not pay them enough and scoffs at those caught between. The law is the law unless your a solicitor and then it is about charging as much as you can for as little as you can self regulating not appeal.....Why!! What do you actually do?

Corruption by the organisation that is supposed to ensure the legal profession are keeping to the SRA principles!

Edit - the SRA requested that the investigators name is removed from my review, so I have, rather than the review be removed. Clearly they do not want their name against their own work which shows that they know they have corrupt and not done what the SRA website states they will do. None of the other content was challenged in anyway, that is because you simply cannot challenge the truth.

I have a suggestion for the SRA, do your jobs properly and then there is no need to be embarrassed when someone writes a review on here and it mentions your name, because it may actually be gratitude and praise for your support with the complaint.

So, the investigator who investigated my case, and despite taking the time to send a lot of information and providing written evidence of to back up my complaint about Graham from Dale and Newbury, otherwise known as DNLAW, not complying with SRA principles, including proof of an outright lie, where he now denies giving the legal advice that he did, the response I had was (if you haven’t guessed already) “no complaint to answer”.

Unbelievable! How spineless and corrupt the SRA are!

It may be the end if the road with the SRA for my complaint, however I shall keep going and now highlight the corruption of the SRA to my MP and other organisations that can investigate the SRA themselves.

381 reviews on here, all for 1 star and never a response from the SRA is proof enough to warrant an review or audit of this corrupt organisation. Perhaps we need to start a petition.

How proud these SRA investigators must feel when they cover up for a solicitor, fully knowing the turmoil that some people have been through!

If you’re reading this, you may also be dealing with unresolved issues related to a solicitor or law firm.

I have spent the last six years in a frustrating back-and-forth with a solicitors firm that demonstrates a complete lack of integrity and care for their clients.

Despite multiple complaints to the SRA regarding this firm, no investigation has been initiated to date.

On May 10, 2025, I received an email from the managing director of Brown Turner Ross in response to my complaint, which included the disrespectful remark: “Does she ever stop this silly bit**”

I have never felt so insulted in my life. Instead of receiving a formal apology explaining the situation, I was asked to delete their comment. Why would I erase evidence of their unprofessional conduct?

I typically wouldn’t feel the need to share such evidence publicly, but given that this firm continues to ignore all correspondence, I feel I have no choice

they are the worse out there. took weeks to respond and ended so abruptly

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has shown itself to be utterly ineffective and, in my view, complicit in enabling unethical behavior within the legal profession.

My sons were the rightful beneficiaries of a death-in-service payment following their father’s death. The solicitors managing the estate failed to notify them, held a substantial sum of money in a “client account” for over three years, and then took six additional months to transfer the funds once the issue came to light. This wasn’t an accident—it was gross negligence at best, and potentially deliberate withholding at worst.

We submitted a detailed and fully evidenced complaint to the SRA. Their response? They dismissed it as “human error”—no investigation, no accountability, no consequences for the solicitors involved. The final insult: a paltry 0.65% interest paid on funds withheld for years.

What is the point of a regulator that refuses to regulate? The SRA appears more interested in protecting rogue solicitors than the public they’re supposed to serve. If this case doesn’t warrant action, one has to wonder what ever would.

The SRA is, in my experience, a toothless, complacent body that has no real intention of protecting people from misconduct. Shameful.

I submitted my complaint in good faith, based on a genuine concern that my former legal representatives may have acted in a way that gave rise to both a conflict of interest and a risk to client confidentiality. The response from the SRA, however, appears dismissive and, in my view, fails to fully recognise or independently interrogate the potential for professional misconduct, particularly in the context of prior representation and access to sensitive information.

I am particularly troubled by what appears to be an instinctive deference to the firm’s assurances, without any external validation or rigorous challenge. This approach creates an impression, rightly or wrongly, of regulatory leniency and raises uncomfortable questions about the SRA’s willingness to hold solicitors meaningfully accountable.

I therefore wish to place on record my concern that the SRA’s current approach may foster perceptions of institutional bias and a reluctance to challenge members of the legal profession, particularly established firms. Such perceptions are damaging not only to individuals like myself, but to the broader integrity of the legal regulatory framework.

Agree with all the reviews, they need to do better investigations.

I submitted a formal complaint to the SRA about a solicitor firm that knowingly misrepresented the law in writing, falsely claimed my lease allowed legal charges (which it clearly did not), and used threats of escalation and reputational damage to pressure me into making a payment under duress. They had drafted the original lease, so they knew full well the costs were not recoverable.

Their conduct was coercive, dishonest, and legally baseless — showing a complete disregard for the truth and for leaseholder rights.

Multiple rulings from the Court of Appeal, Upper Tribunal, and First-tier Tribunal confirm that legal costs cannot be recovered from leaseholders unless the lease contains clear and specific wording. The solicitor firm ignored this entirely and acted as if the law did not apply to them.

These practices breached core SRA Principles, including:
– Acting with integrity
– Upholding public trust in the profession
– Behaving in a way that maintains the rule of law

Yet the SRA chose not to investigate.

No valid explanation was offered — just a flat bias refusal. The same firm has over 150 one-star reviews, many describing similar misconduct. The SRA itself now has over 370 one-star reviews, with countless people reporting the same failure to act.

This is not regulation. It is protectionism for bad solicitors — and the public is paying the price.

Let It Be Known All Law Firms in UK Pay Their Practicing/Licensing Fees Directly To The SRA. This Is Exactly How Corrupt Corporations Function When They Are Able To Oversee/Govern/Police Themselves. The SRA Sweeps Any Unethical Misconduct, Data Privacy Breaches AND/OR Breaches Of Regulatory Obligations Under The Rug On Behalf Of Said Law Firm, Despite The Glaringly Obvious Irrefutable Evidence That's Right In Front Of Their And Our Own Eyes. No Investigation, Just Takes The Very Law Firm Who The Complaint Is Based On At Their Untrustworthy Words Of Doing Nothing Wrong. I Was Not Shocked To Find Out There's 373 BAD Reviews Of Said SRA Corporation. Why Are They Even In Place When Their Existence IS Clearly Not To Protect The Consumer But Actually Is Complicit In Helping Harbour And Protect The Law Firms Who Complaints Are Being Submitted About. This IS Total Corruption At It's Finest. However, What's Done In The Dark Does Come To Light!

The Solicitors Regulation Authority it seems is there to justify the actions of solicitors and not protect the consumer, which is what they should be doing. When you have provided clear evidence that a solicitor has lied, not delivered the right outcome and held on to interest that doesn’t belong to them, which is a breach of their regulatory obligations and the SRA brush over it, then there is no point whatsoever to them being in place. As majority of people have pointed out don’t waste your time referring anything to them. If you need to claim compensation from a solicitor, then I would recommend taking action through the small claims court as the Legal Ombudsman are much the same.

Clueless, spineless, toothless, biased, and corrupt.

Utterly pointless - useless, and NOT fit for purpose!