SRA imposes conditions preventing a solicitor from holding senior or compliance roles
Satnam Talwar has had conditions imposed on his practising certificate by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), restricting his ability to hold senior roles within regulated legal practices.
The decision, dated 13 February 2026 and published on 26 March 2026, relates to Mr Talwar’s practising certificate for the 2025/2026 practice year.
At the time of the matters giving rise to the outcome, Mr. Talwar was practising at QC Law Limited, based at 124 City Road in London.
Under the conditions imposed by the SRA, Mr. Talwar is prohibited from acting as a manager or owner of an authorised legal body. In addition, he may not hold the positions of Compliance Officer for Legal Practice (COLP) or Compliance Officer for Finance and Administration (COFA).
These restrictions apply for the duration of his practising certificate and limit his involvement in the governance and regulatory oversight of any authorised firm.
The SRA stated that the conditions were imposed in the public interest and were considered reasonable and proportionate. In reaching its decision, the regulator applied the framework set out in regulation 7 of the SRA Authorisation of Individuals Regulations, alongside the regulatory objectives and principles contained in section 28 of the Legal Services Act 2007.
The outcome reflects the SRA’s role in ensuring that individuals in positions of responsibility within law firms meet the required standards of competence, integrity, and compliance. By restricting Mr. Talwar from holding management or compliance roles, the regulator has limited his ability to influence key operational and regulatory functions within a legal practice.
No further details of the underlying conduct leading to the conditions were disclosed in the published decision.
Conditions placed on practising certificates are a regulatory tool used by the SRA to manage risk while allowing individuals to continue practising in a controlled capacity. Such measures are typically applied where the regulator considers that unrestricted practice may not be appropriate, but where a full suspension or more severe sanction is not necessary.
The decision underscores the importance of maintaining appropriate standards among those holding leadership and compliance roles within law firms, particularly given their responsibilities in ensuring adherence to regulatory requirements and safeguarding public confidence in legal services.