Health issues, including serious mental health crises such as suicide attempts, are not treated by the regulator as misconduct in themselves.
This regulatory approach sits against a wider backdrop of well-documented mental health pressures within the legal profession. Independent research published by LawCare in its Life in the Law 2025 report found that nearly 60% of people working in the legal sector reported poor mental wellbeing, with high levels of anxiety, burnout and work intensity continuing across all seniority levels. The report also identified persistent concerns about stigma and reluctance to disclose mental ill-health at work, reinforcing why regulators distinguish between the existence of a health condition and its actual impact on professional performance.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority has made clear that its role is not to discipline solicitors for having health conditions, but to assess whether those conditions affect safe practice or compliance with regulatory obligations, as set out in its guidance on health issues and medical evidence.
Health issues are not automatically a disciplinary matter
The SRA’s published guidance makes clear that it does not take regulatory action simply because a solicitor has a health condition, including a mental health condition such as a suicide attempt. Instead, the focus is on risk and capacity, not diagnosis.
In practice:
- Health issues are relevant only if they affect a solicitor’s ability to practise safely or comply with regulatory processes.
- Most solicitors with health conditions continue to practise safely without any regulatory involvement.
- A solicitor does not need to report a health condition to the SRA if they are satisfied they are taking appropriate steps to address it and mitigate any regulatory risks; disclosure is expected where a health issue may affect safe practice or compliance with regulatory requirements.
- Where a health issue poses a genuine risk, the SRA may impose conditions on practice, but only where necessary for public or client protection and supported by medical evidence.
The SRA also states that medical evidence may be required to understand the impact of a health issue and that reasonable adjustments may be made during investigations and proceedings where appropriate.
Importantly, the SRA cannot remove a solicitor from the Roll solely for health reasons. At most, it may refuse or impose conditions on a practising certificate where this is necessary for public protection.
The emphasis on proportionality and regulatory justification is reflected in tribunal decisions, such as a solicitor’s unsuccessful appeal against a rebuke, where intervention was upheld as a measured response rather than a punitive one.
SDT’s published approach to health issues
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) has its own Guidance Note on Health Issues. It expressly recognises that mental health concerns, stress and related conditions are a recurring feature in disciplinary cases.
The SDT guidance emphasises that:
- Health issues are relevant when assessing fairness and appropriate outcomes.
- Medical evidence is expected where health is relied upon.
- The aim is to ensure a fair hearing while maintaining public protection.
This approach is consistent with High Court authority upholding tribunal discretion in disciplinary matters, including cases where health and mitigation were considered but did not outweigh the need for public protection, as illustrated by the High Court’s decision upholding disbarment.
What the SRA and SDT do not say
There is no published policy stating that a suicide attempt automatically bars someone from practising. Both the SRA and the SDT assess health issues on a case-by-case basis.
Crucially:
- The SRA does not state that a suicide attempt equates to a lack of professional capacity.
- The decisive question is whether the health condition actually affects safe practice or regulatory compliance.
This distinction mirrors the High Court’s consistent refusal to interfere with disciplinary decisions absent a clear legal or procedural flaw, as illustrated by an unsuccessful appeal against tribunal findings where the court declined to revisit factual and evaluative judgments.
Reported claims versus the official position
Claims circulating on social media have suggested that the SRA has barred individuals from practising following a suicide attempt. The regulator has clarified that it has no policy of automatically imposing restrictions on mental health grounds alone.
The SRA has emphasised that:
- It supports solicitors experiencing mental health difficulties.
- Conditions or restrictions are imposed only where there is an identifiable risk to the public or to the solicitor’s ability to practise.
- Vulnerable individuals are treated with care and urgency during regulatory processes.
Research into wellbeing within the legal profession also indicates why this clarification matters: LawCare has reported that a significant proportion of legal professionals experiencing mental ill-health choose not to disclose it at work, often due to fear of negative consequences, underlining the importance of clear regulatory messaging that mental health crises alone do not equate to professional unfitness.
This position aligns with the broader regulatory emphasis on public interest and transparency, reflected in cases where the courts have upheld open disciplinary outcomes despite personal impact, as illustrated by a High Court decision refusing anonymity.
Practical takeaways
For a solicitor who has attempted suicide:
- A suicide attempt is not a standalone disciplinary offence.
- The SRA will consider health issues only where they impact safe practice or regulatory compliance.
- Medical evidence is critical if health is raised during an investigation or SDT proceedings.
- The SDT explicitly accepts health issues as relevant and will consider them fairly.
- The SRA’s public position is that it does not automatically bar solicitors because of past suicide attempts; any restriction must be evidence-based and risk-focused.