Veteran solicitor says SRA made him a scapegoat after tribunal dismissed all charges
A solicitor cleared of dishonesty charges has condemned the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) for pursuing what he described as a weak and unnecessary prosecution, despite being ordered to pay nearly £11,000 in costs.
David Mark Turner, a civil litigator admitted in 1992, was accused by the SRA of misleading a small building firm by failing to disclose the true outcome of a summary judgment hearing against them. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) rejected the allegations last month, concluding that Turner had acted honestly.
However, the SDT still ruled that the SRA should recover £10,854 in costs, saying the regulator had been “required to bring its case.”
Speaking to The Law Society Gazette, Turner said the experience left him questioning the regulator’s motives. “I was pondering whether to refer myself. I thought the allegation was very weak, but I thought I had better be whiter than white,” he said. “I had not had any regulatory issues in 30 years.”
Embed from Getty Images
At the time of the incident, Turner served as compliance officer for legal practice at Kitson Boyce. The firm prepared a self-report, submitted to the SRA on 3 August 2021. Turner said he had not reviewed the report before submission and later withdrew it. But in November 2023, the SRA informed him he would be referred to the SDT.
By then, Turner had semi-retired from active practice. The prolonged investigation, he said, weighed heavily on him. “I would not wish this upon anyone. It is always on your mind,” he explained. He now works for Nexa Law as a litigation partner.
Turner presented several character references from fellow solicitors, and, unusually, one from a client involved in the disputed case. The client described Turner as “considerate, frank, and objective in difficult circumstances” and stated that he should not suffer for what had occurred.
Despite these submissions, the SDT imposed the SRA’s costs on Turner. “I can tell you I find it strange and harsh. I just think it was a very harsh decision,” he said.
He criticised the regulator’s approach, arguing that the matter could have been resolved internally rather than through a full disciplinary process. “It should have been sorted out just internally and not referred to the SDT. It is almost as if the SRA want to be seen to be bringing prosecutions and they pick some easy targets such as myself.”
Turner acknowledged the importance of professional oversight but suggested smaller firms and individuals are often disproportionately scrutinised. “I understand you need regulators and there are some bad apples in the solicitor profession,” he said. “But we are easy targets, people like me. I do not have a glamour practice. It is the way a lot of regulators work. The financial services regulators go after smaller independent financial advisers; they do not go after the big banks.”
Offering advice to solicitors facing investigation, Turner urged colleagues to remain calm and seek professional help early. “Keep as cool as you can, have faith in your skills, and get legal representation as early as you can,” he said.
Turner has since begun discussions with the Law Society about improving transparency in the SRA’s public records of disciplinary actions. Currently, details of unsuccessful prosecutions remain visible on the regulator’s website without clearly highlighting acquittals. “I think it is just unfair to have that there,” he added.
The case highlights ongoing debate about proportionality in the SRA’s approach to enforcement, particularly when cleared solicitors remain burdened by financial penalties and reputational damage.