SRA Disciplinary Tribunal: Defending a Solicitor Against an SRA Referral

Last updated: 5 May 2026

Quick answer

If the Solicitors Regulation Authority refers you to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT), you receive an Application and a Rule 12 Statement setting out the allegations. You have 28 days to file an Answer admitting or denying each allegation. The Tribunal then makes case-management directions: disclosure, witness statements, expert evidence (if any), and a substantive hearing. The standard of proof is the civil standard — balance of probabilities — under rule 5 of the Solicitors (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules 2019, which replaced the long-standing criminal standard ("beyond reasonable doubt") for proceedings commenced from 25 November 2019. The hearing is in public unless application is made for it to be held in private. Findings range from no order, through fine, restriction of practice, suspension, to strike-off. Take specialist representation from the start; an SRA referral is career-defining and the procedural deadlines are strict.

---

How a referral happens

Most SRA referrals to the SDT begin with a complaint, an audit, or a self-report. The SRA's investigation team takes a view. If they conclude there is sufficient evidence of professional misconduct serious enough to warrant tribunal proceedings, they:

1. Write to the solicitor explaining what is alleged ("Forensic Investigation Report")
2. Invite a written response (commonly called a "Rule 13 letter")
3. Take a Decision to Refer
4. Issue an Application to the SDT under Solicitors (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules 2019

The Rule 12 Statement is the formal Particulars of Claim equivalent — it sets out each allegation, the rule or principle said to be breached, the conduct relied on, and the supporting evidence.

---

The 28-day Answer

You receive the Application and Rule 12 Statement. Rule 18 of the SDR 2019 requires an Answer within 28 days of service.

The Answer should:

• Admit or deny each allegation, paragraph by paragraph
• Where denied, give reasons
• Identify any positive case (e.g. supervision failure, mental health, mitigation)
• Indicate broad disclosure being sought
• Identify witnesses likely to be called

A poorly-drafted Answer narrows your options later. A well-drafted Answer:

• Admits what cannot be defended (saving costs and credit at sentence)
• Denies clearly what is genuinely disputed
• Reserves position where evidence is incomplete

You can apply for an extension under Rule 6, but extensions are not given lightly. If you genuinely need more time — for example, the SRA disclosure is voluminous and counsel has not been instructed — apply early with reasons.

---

The standard of proof

For decades the SDT applied the criminal standard ("beyond reasonable doubt"). That changed with the Solicitors (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules 2019, rule 5, in force from 25 November 2019. The standard is now the civil standard — balance of probabilities — for all SDT proceedings commenced after that date.

What this means in practice:

• The SRA needs to satisfy the Tribunal that on balance, the misconduct happened
• The Tribunal applies Re B [2008] UKHL 35 — the more serious the allegation, the more cogent the evidence required to prove it
• Findings of dishonesty in particular still require substantial evidence, even at the civil standard

The shift has not turned the SDT into a soft touch. Allegations of dishonesty, sexual misconduct, or systematic regulatory breach still require strong evidence. But it has made marginal cases easier for the SRA to win.

---

Allegations commonly made

The SDR refers to "allegations" rather than charges. Each allegation typically pleads:

• The factual conduct
• The Principle or Code rule said to be breached
• A characterisation (lack of integrity, dishonesty, breach of trust)

The most common allegations:

Multi-allegation Applications are common. A single course of conduct might be pleaded as breaches of multiple Principles plus specific Code rules.

---

Dishonesty — the Ivey test

Dishonesty is the most serious finding the SDT can make. A finding of dishonesty against a solicitor leads almost invariably to strike-off; cases departing from this presumption are exceptional ("exceptional circumstances" must be shown).

The legal test changed in 2017. For decades the Twinsectra "two-stage" subjective test applied. Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017] UKSC 67, applied to disciplinary proceedings in Wingate v SRA [2018] EWCA Civ 366, established the modern test:

1. Subjective: what was the actual state of the individual's knowledge or belief as to the facts?
2. Objective: was the conduct, judged by the standards of ordinary honest people, dishonest given that state of mind?

There is no requirement for the individual to have realised that what they were doing was, by ordinary standards, dishonest. If they did it, and ordinary people would call it dishonest given what they knew, that is dishonesty.

This makes dishonesty findings easier to obtain than under the old test, and harder to defend against where the underlying facts are admitted.

---

Disclosure and case management

Once the Answer is filed, the case is listed for a Case Management Hearing. The Tribunal makes directions covering:

• Disclosure (mutual disclosure of relevant documents)
• Witness statements (claimant and defendant)
• Expert evidence (rare in pure misconduct cases; more common where forensic accounting is involved)
• Time estimate for the substantive hearing
• Hearing date

Disclosure in SRA cases can be voluminous. A Forensic Investigation Report can run to 200-1,000 pages. Client files run to many thousands more. Specialist regulatory counsel will narrow the disclosure burden by:

• Identifying the actual issues in dispute
• Limiting requests to what bears on those issues
• Pushing back against fishing-expedition requests

---

The substantive hearing

A substantive SDT hearing is conducted in public unless privacy is granted. Hearings are heard by a panel of three: two solicitor members and one lay member. The procedure mirrors a civil trial:

• SRA opens the case
• SRA witnesses give evidence and are cross-examined
• Defence witnesses give evidence and are cross-examined
• The defendant (the respondent solicitor) usually gives evidence
• Closing submissions

The Tribunal then deliberates and produces a written Judgment, usually within 4-8 weeks.

If allegations are found proved, the Tribunal moves to sanction. Both parties can make submissions on sanction. The Tribunal applies the SDT Guidance Note on Sanctions which sets out a structured approach to seriousness.

---

Sentence options

The SDT can impose any of the following:

• No order — allegations proved but no further action
• Reprimand — formal censure
• Fine — unlimited under section 47(2)(c) Solicitors Act 1974; the SDT structures the amount by reference to its Sanctions Guidance Note
• Restriction of practice — restrictions on practice areas, supervision required, conditions on practising certificate
• Suspension — for a defined period, after which return to practice is automatic
• Indefinite suspension — return requires application
• Strike-off — removal from the Roll; return requires SRA Adjudicator decision

The starting point for proven dishonesty is strike-off. Almost everything else is open to argument.

---

Costs

Costs follow the event by default. A solicitor who loses faces an SRA costs claim, often £30,000-£200,000+. A solicitor who wins can recover costs from the SRA, but the SDT scrutinises both sides' costs schedules carefully. The Tribunal frequently makes percentage costs orders rather than full recovery.

A solicitor with no insurance for SDT proceedings can face personal liability for both their own costs and the SRA's costs. Some Solicitors Indemnity Insurance policies exclude regulatory matters; some specialist Directors & Officers / Professional Persons policies include them. Check coverage early.

---

Appeal

A respondent or the SRA can appeal a decision of the Tribunal to the Administrative Court (Divisional Court for solicitors) under section 49 of the Solicitors Act 1974. The notice of appeal must be filed within 21 days of the Tribunal's order, with an Appellant's Notice and grounds.

The Administrative Court applies a deferential standard: it will not interfere with findings of fact unless they were "clearly wrong"; sanctions will not be reduced unless they were outside the range reasonably open to the Tribunal. Successful appeals are rare but not unheard of, particularly where the Tribunal has misapplied legal tests or sanctioned outside the published Guidance.

---

Bundle preparation for the SDT

The SDT operates its own electronic bundles practice. The trial bundle is uploaded to the Tribunal's case management system, with strict format and pagination requirements aligned with CPR PD 32.

A typical SDT bundle contains:

• Section A: Pleadings (Application, Rule 12 Statement, Answer, replies)
• Section B: Witness statements
• Section C: Forensic Investigation Report and supporting documents
• Section D: Client files relied on
• Section E: Accounts records
• Section F: Correspondence between SRA and solicitor
• Section G: Character references and mitigation evidence
• Section H: Authorities

BundleCreator's Regulatory Law template structures the bundle in the order the SDT expects. Pagination, hyperlinked index, OCR, and bookmarks are produced automatically. Solicitors representing themselves or junior counsel can produce a tribunal-ready bundle in around 15 minutes, instead of 4-6 hours of manual collation.

---

Frequently asked questions

Can I keep practising while the case is pending?

Usually yes — unless the SRA has imposed an interim condition, suspension, or intervention. Interim restrictions are dealt with separately under the SRA's regulatory powers and are not part of the SDT process. If you have an interim suspension, your practising certificate is restricted while the substantive case proceeds.

Should I represent myself?

For all but the simplest case, no. SDT proceedings are technical, evidence-heavy, and career-defining. Specialist regulatory solicitors and counsel know the Tribunal's habits, the case law on each Principle, and the sentencing patterns. The cost of representation is usually a fraction of the cost of an avoidable adverse finding.

Will it be in the press?

Findings of fact and sanction are published on the SDT website. Mainstream legal press (Law Society Gazette, Legal Futures) covers most decisions. National press picks up high-profile cases. Pre-hearing media coverage is uncommon but possible.

What if I admit the allegations?

Early admission can attract a discount on sanction (typically 10-25% off a fine or suspension period; not generally available where strike-off is the starting point). It also reduces the SRA's costs claim. But admitting allegations you do not actually accept is dangerous — the Tribunal will sentence on the basis of the admitted misconduct, and the admitted facts can be relied on in any subsequent civil or criminal proceedings.

What about my professional indemnity insurer?

Notify them as soon as you know about the SRA referral, even if you think the allegations are unfounded. Most policies require prompt notification of "circumstances which may give rise to a claim or regulatory action". Late notification can void cover.

What if I am not a solicitor — does this still apply?

The SDT also handles cases against:

• Authorised individuals other than solicitors (RFLs, REL/RELOs, registered foreign lawyers)
• Trainee solicitors (under the SRA's separate trainee disciplinary process, which uses similar procedure)
• Non-authorised employees of regulated firms (under specific provisions of the Legal Services Act 2007)

The procedure broadly tracks the SDR but has its own variations. Take advice on which route applies.

---

Further reading

• Solicitors (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules 2019
• Solicitors Act 1974 — particularly sections 47-49
• SRA Standards and Regulations — Principles, Codes of Conduct, Accounts Rules
• Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal — Practice Notes and Sanctions Guidance
• Fitness to Practise: How GMC, NMC, and HCPC Hearings Differ
• FCA Enforcement Notice: Responding to a Decision Notice and Tribunal Reference