SRA imposes strict controls after a non-solicitor caused catastrophic injuries in an alcohol crash
The Solicitors Regulation Authority has imposed strict restrictions on a non-solicitor employed at national firm Leigh Day after she caused catastrophic injuries in a road traffic collision while impaired by alcohol. The regulator confirmed that Susana Mason, whose last known address was in London, can no longer work in any capacity within an SRA-regulated firm without prior approval.
According to the SRA decision, the incident occurred on 22 April 2024 when Mason, who was impaired by alcohol and distracted by her mobile phone, was involved in a collision that left the other driver with catastrophic injuries. She was later convicted of a criminal offence in relation to the incident. The regulator found that her conduct made it undesirable for her to be involved in legal practice, given the seriousness of the offence and the impact on public trust in the profession.
Mason was employed at Leigh Day at the time of the events. She was not a solicitor but worked within the firm’s legal practice. While she had carried out work under the direction of qualified solicitors, the SRA determined that her conviction was incompatible with continued involvement in any regulated legal role unless the regulator provided written permission.
Embed from Getty Images
Under section 43 of the Solicitors Act 1974, the SRA can restrict the ability of non-solicitors to work in the sector if their conduct makes their involvement undesirable. The order issued against Mason means she cannot be employed, remunerated, managed or permitted to hold any interest in a recognised body without the SRA’s express consent. This applies across the entire regulated sector, covering solicitors, recognised bodies, managers and employees.
The decision sets out that the SRA considered the nature of the criminal offending and its consequences. Regulators frequently emphasise the importance of maintaining public trust and upholding professional standards, even where the conduct occurred outside the workplace. In Mason’s case, the seriousness of the injuries caused and the role of alcohol and distraction were key factors in determining that controls were necessary.
The SRA also ordered Mason to pay £600 towards its investigation costs. No further sanctions were described in the published notice.
Section 43 orders do not prohibit an individual from working entirely but require firms to obtain permission before offering employment. The regulator typically grants approval only where strict supervision structures are in place and where the individual’s role does not pose risks to clients or the wider public interest.
Leigh Day was not criticised in the decision notice, and the SRA made no findings about the firm’s supervision or conduct. The case relates solely to Mason’s actions outside the workplace and the subsequent criminal conviction.
The published decision, dated 25 November 2025 and released on 4 December 2025, emphasises the SRA’s responsibility to act where conduct by individuals connected with legal services threatens confidence in the profession. The restrictions take effect from the date Mason was notified of the decision.