Confidence in professional regulation depends not only on formal fairness but on whether outcomes appear fair in practice. For more than two decades, Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) solicitors have been disproportionately represented in disciplinary processes overseen by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. The persistence of this pattern, despite repeated scrutiny and reform efforts, has led many within the profession to question whether the disparity reflects structural bias within the regulatory system itself rather than mere coincidence or external factors. While the regulator rejects allegations of discriminatory intent, the data raises an uncomfortable possibility: that minority solicitors may face a higher risk of regulatory escalation even when controlling for contextual variables.
Answering whether this amounts to harsher treatment requires distinguishing between disproportionality, causation and intent. The available evidence demonstrates unequal outcomes at several stages of the enforcement pipeline. It does not conclusively prove deliberate discrimination, but neither does it fully dispel concerns that decision-making processes may embed systemic disadvantages.
How the SRA Regulates Solicitors in England and Wales
Oversight of solicitors and law firms in England and Wales is carried out by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. The regulator sets professional standards, supervises compliance, investigates concerns and takes enforcement action where necessary to protect consumers and uphold public confidence in legal services.
The SRA publishes diversity monitoring data on investigations and enforcement outcomes, enabling scrutiny of patterns over time and allowing the profession to assess whether regulation operates equitably.
SRA Enforcement Statistics 2023/24: Evidence of Disproportionate Investigations
The SRA’s official Investigations and Enforcement Diversity Monitoring Annual Report 2023/24 confirms that disproportionality remains visible across multiple stages of the enforcement process:
According to the published data:
- Nineteen percent of the practising population of known ethnicity is BAME
- Twenty-six percent of concerns received involve BAME solicitors
- Thirty-three percent of matters taken forward for investigation involve BAME solicitors
- Asian solicitors represent about thirteen percent of the profession but account for twenty-four percent of investigations
- Black solicitors represent roughly three percent of the profession but account for six percent of investigations
Crucially, disproportionality increases as cases progress from reporting to formal investigation, suggesting that disparities may be amplified within the regulatory pathway itself.
Independent Research on Overrepresentation of Minority Solicitors
In 2024, the Solicitors Regulation Authority commissioned independent academic research to examine the causes of overrepresentation.
Research hub:
https://www.sra.org.uk/sra/research-publications/overrepresentation-reports-sra/
Full analytical report (PDF):
https://www.sra.org.uk/globalassets/documents/sra/research/overrepresentation-sra-analysis.pdf
Researchers analysed thousands of enforcement cases and tested variables including firm size, practice area, reporting source and ethnicity. The most striking finding was that disproportionality increases most sharply at the assessment stage, where decisions are made about whether a concern should progress into a formal investigation.
Even after controlling for contextual factors, ethnicity remained statistically associated with progression outcomes. Although the study did not conclude that decision-makers were acting with overt racial bias, the persistence of ethnicity as an independent factor raises difficult questions about implicit bias and structural disadvantage.
Why Small Firms and Sole Practitioners Face Greater Regulatory Risk
Firm size emerged as a significant structural factor. Minority ethnic solicitors are disproportionately represented in smaller firms and sole practices.
Further data on diversity within the profession can be found here:
https://www.sra.org.uk/sra/equality-diversity/diversity-profession/diverse-legal-profession/
Smaller practices typically lack the compliance infrastructure and internal risk-management mechanisms available to large commercial firms. Complaints that might be handled internally in large organisations are therefore more likely to escalate to the regulator when arising from small firms.
Structural positioning within the legal market directly influences exposure to enforcement action.
Practice Areas with Higher Complaint Rates: Immigration, Crime and Family Law
Practice area concentration further shapes reporting patterns. Minority ethnic solicitors are statistically more likely to practise in high-intensity public-facing fields such as immigration, criminal defence and family law.
These areas involve vulnerable clients, urgent matters and emotionally charged disputes, conditions that naturally generate higher complaint rates. The independent research suggests that perceptions of misconduct may also be influenced by attribution bias, where mistakes by minority practitioners are more likely to be interpreted as reflecting personal failings rather than situational pressures.
Further research into complaint dynamics is available here:
https://www.sra.org.uk/sra/research-publications/overrepresentation-potential-misconduct-sra/
Increased SRA Supervision and AML Compliance Pressures
Recent regulatory developments provide additional context. The SRA has expanded proactive supervision, particularly in anti-money laundering compliance.
AML Annual Report 2024–25:
https://www.sra.org.uk/sra/research-publications/aml-annual-report-2024-25/
Inspection cycles have found a substantial proportion of firms to be non-compliant. Smaller firms, which are more likely to be minority-led, may face disproportionate operational pressure in meeting complex and evolving regulatory requirements, increasing the risk of enforcement action.
Does the Evidence Show Bias in SRA Enforcement?
The data demonstrates persistent overrepresentation of BAME solicitors throughout the enforcement pipeline. Independent research confirms that disparities widen at key decision points, particularly assessment and investigation stages.
Structural factors, practice context and reporting behaviour clearly contribute to this pattern. Yet ethnicity remains a statistically significant variable even after these influences are taken into account.
The research does not establish that the regulator imposes harsher sanctions for equivalent misconduct, nor does it prove intentional discrimination. However, if harsher treatment is understood as a greater likelihood of being reported, investigated and progressed through enforcement, minority solicitors appear to face materially higher regulatory exposure.
Maintaining confidence in professional regulation requires more than procedural neutrality; it requires demonstrable equality of outcomes. Where disparities persist despite sustained scrutiny, concerns about systemic bias are unlikely to fade. Continued transparency, independent oversight and reform of discretionary decision points will be essential if trust in the regulatory system is to be preserved across the profession.
