Regulator reported sharp rise in misconduct complaints as concerns emerged over use of external firms handling assessment work
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has reported a sharp increase in misconduct complaints and investigations while facing criticism over its use of outsourced firms in the assessment process.
New figures published by the regulator show that, in the six months to the end of April 2026, the SRA reviewed 8,955 reports of potential misconduct an average of 1,493 new reports each month. The regulator said this represented a 58% increase compared with the same period two years earlier.
Reports of potential misconduct are initially handled by the SRA’s Assessment and Early Resolution Team (AERT), which decides whether matters should proceed to formal investigation. Between November 2025 and April 2026, 1,322 reports were escalated by the AERT team for formal investigation, averaging 220 referrals each month. According to the regulator, this represented a 41% increase compared with two years earlier, when an average of 156 cases per month were referred to investigators.
As of 30 April 2026, the SRA said it was handling ongoing investigations linked to 1,844 reports of potential misconduct.
Jonathan Peddie, executive director for investigations, enforcement and litigation, said: “We’ve seen an unprecedented increase in the reports we receive, putting significant pressure on our approach and resources. In the short term, we have diverted resources from elsewhere, but this isn’t sustainable as we need strength in all areas. As outlined in our recently published draft business plan, we need to consider a range of fundamental changes to the way we work in response to this changing dynamic. This will ensure we can continue to protect the public and uphold confidence in legal services.”
The increase in complaints comes amid concerns raised by regulatory consultant Jayne Willetts over the SRA’s use of external law firms to assist with complaint assessments.
In a LinkedIn post, Willetts said solicitors receiving letters about reports of professional misconduct would have “no idea” that parts of the assessment process had been outsourced. She criticised the use of correspondence on SRA-branded paper in which individuals described themselves as “Investigation Officer, Solicitors Regulation Authority”.
“An individual employed by an external law firm is not an investigation officer at the SRA,” Willetts said. “One suspects that the SRA’s objective in adopting this modus operandi is to deceive the recipient into believing that they are dealing directly with the SRA – the risk being that if the recipient knew that they were dealing with an external law firm then they would refuse to co-operate with the investigation.”
Willetts also raised concerns around transparency and client confidentiality, arguing that firms responding to the letters may not realise potentially privileged information could be shared with third-party law firms.
She said she had encountered three examples of the practice in six weeks while acting for law firm clients and confirmed she had written to the regulator urging procedural changes.
Willetts added that while some firms may not object to outsourcing, others might take a different view if informed. She said the issue was not whether outsourcing itself was permissible, but whether the regulator had made the arrangement sufficiently clear.
The SRA said three firms from its intervention panel had provided around 50 staff to assist with assessment work. It stated that only cases progressing beyond the assessment stage would be formally investigated by SRA employees.
An SRA spokesperson said the external staff were engaged through standard procurement processes and used SRA systems while carrying out the work.
The spokesperson added: “However we have acknowledged Ms Willetts’ point that they are not investigation officers and they now say they are working on our behalf instead.”