The short answer
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal is an independent statutory tribunal established under the Solicitors Act 1974, hearing serious misconduct allegations referred by the SRA. Cases are decided by a panel of three, two solicitor members and one lay member. Since 25 November 2019 the standard of proof has been the civil standard, the balance of probabilities, rather than the criminal standard that applied before. Its powers under section 47 include an unlimited fine, suspension and striking a solicitor off the roll, and its decisions can be appealed to the High Court.
The change that altered the odds
The Solicitors (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules 2019 lowered the standard of proof to the balance of probabilities for cases certified as showing a case to answer on or after 25 November 2019. Cases certified before that date remain subject to the criminal standard. The SRA no longer has to prove misconduct beyond reasonable doubt, which materially changed the prospects of contested allegations.
What the tribunal is, and what it is not
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal is an independent tribunal created by the Solicitors Act 1974. It hears cases referred predominantly by the SRA, and it is independent of the SRA in a way that matters practically: it adjudicates rather than prosecutes, and it regularly declines to find allegations proved.
It operates under its own procedural rules, the Solicitors (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules 2019, which came into force on 25 November 2019 and replaced the 2007 Rules. Rule 4 sets out the overriding objective, to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost, in language deliberately echoing the Civil Procedure Rules.
Panels are constituted under rule 9: three members for the hearing of any application, of whom two must be solicitor members and one must be a lay member. The lay member is not decorative. The composition is the reason the tribunal can claim to apply professional standards without being a closed professional club.
It also holds powers the SRA does not. The SRA can rebuke, fine within limits, and impose conditions. Only the tribunal can suspend a solicitor, strike them off the roll, or impose an unlimited fine.
Note on jurisdiction
The SDT covers England and Wales. Scotland has a separate body, the Scottish Solicitors’ Discipline Tribunal, operating under different rules. Decisions from one are not authority in the other, and commentary that treats them interchangeably is misleading.
The standard of proof, and why it matters
This is the most consequential change to how the tribunal works in a generation, and it is routinely omitted from summaries of the SDT.
Until 2019 the SRA had to prove its allegations to the criminal standard, beyond reasonable doubt, before the tribunal. That was anomalous: the SRA applied the civil standard in its own internal decisions, and the disparity had attracted judicial comment.
Following consultation, the tribunal announced the change in April 2019, and rule 5 of the 2019 Rules gave effect to it. For all first instance cases certified as showing a case to answer on or after 25 November 2019, the standard is the balance of probabilities. For cases certified before that date, the criminal standard continues to apply.
The practical effect is significant. Contested allegations that would previously have failed for want of certainty may now succeed on a finding that misconduct was more likely than not. Courts have emphasised that there is a single civil standard, applied flexibly according to the seriousness of what is alleged, but the threshold is plainly lower than it was.
How a case reaches and proceeds through the tribunal
Most cases begin with an SRA investigation. Where the regulator concludes that conduct may warrant sanctions beyond its own powers, it refers the matter to the tribunal and prosecutes it there.
The Rule 12 statement
The SRA prepares a statement under rule 12 setting out the allegations and the factual basis for them, accompanied by an exhibit attaching the evidence relied on. That document defines the case, and the tribunal certifies whether there is a case to answer. The certification date is what determines which standard of proof applies.
The hearing
Proceedings resemble court hearings, with evidence, witness testimony and legal submissions before the three-member panel. Hearings are generally public and judgments are published, which is a substantial part of the sanction in itself.
Agreed outcomes
Not every case is fought. The tribunal’s Practice Direction on agreed outcomes allows the SRA and a respondent to put a proposed resolution to the tribunal, which considers whether to approve it. The tribunal is not obliged to accept what the parties have agreed.
Appeal
Decisions may be appealed to the High Court. Appeals are reviews rather than rehearings and rarely succeed without an identified legal or procedural error, as our guide to why professional discipline appeals rarely succeed explains.
Sanctions and costs
The tribunal’s powers are set out in section 47 of the Solicitors Act 1974, and applied in accordance with its published guidance on sanctions.
| Sanction | Effect |
|---|---|
| Strike off | Removal from the roll. The person cannot practise as a solicitor, and restoration requires a successful application to the tribunal |
| Suspension | Indefinite or for a fixed period, after which practice may resume |
| Fine | Unlimited, subject to the tribunal’s assessment of seriousness and means |
| Restrictions | Conditions on future practice, including on holding client money or acting as a compliance officer |
| Reprimand | A formal finding recorded and published |
| Costs | Orders to pay the SRA’s costs of the prosecution, frequently substantial |
Two points are commonly misstated. Strike off is often described as permanent removal from the roll. It is not permanent in law: section 47(1) allows a former solicitor whose name has been struck off to apply to the tribunal for restoration. Restoration is uncommon and difficult, particularly after dishonesty, but the route exists. Our guide to what strike off actually means covers the position in full.
The second is costs. A costs order can exceed the fine, and for a respondent who contests allegations unsuccessfully the combined financial consequence is frequently the largest part of the outcome.
What recent cases show
Findings can be overturned
The case involving Ashley Hurst illustrates appellate oversight in practice. Mr Hurst was fined by the tribunal over the use of without prejudice correspondence in a way said to have restricted disclosure, with the tribunal concluding the conduct engaged integrity. The High Court subsequently overturned key aspects of that decision. Tribunal findings are not the end of the matter where a legal or evidential error can be identified.
Dishonesty linked to criminal conduct
Where dishonesty is established, particularly alongside criminal conviction, strike off is the near invariable outcome. We reported the striking off of Paul Green following conviction for laundering criminal proceeds.
The tribunal does dismiss allegations
In 2025 the tribunal dismissed allegations against Claire Gill concerning litigation conduct, criticising the regulator’s reliance on hindsight and emphasising that allegations require clear and cogent evidence. That case is a useful corrective to the assumption that referral equals finding.
Client money and accounts
Breaches involving client funds remain among the most common grounds for proceedings. Where dishonesty is established, strike off is likely; where the failures are systemic rather than dishonest, fines and restrictions are the usual outcome.
Workplace conduct
Regulatory scrutiny extends beyond technical legal work to how solicitors behave towards colleagues. The SRA has said its caseload increasingly includes matters such as harassment, bullying and offensive communications, and conduct towards junior colleagues has produced sanctions including restrictions on supervisory responsibility.
What this means for practitioners
Three things follow from how the tribunal now operates.
The evidential threshold is lower than many assume. Practitioners who formed their understanding of SDT proceedings before 2019 are working from a different regime. The balance of probabilities applies to everything certified since 25 November 2019.
Contemporaneous records do the work. Where the question is what was more likely than not, the file note made at the time is worth considerably more than a recollection reconstructed years later under cross-examination.
Costs shape strategy. The combination of an unlimited fining power and costs orders means the financial exposure of contesting allegations unsuccessfully can dwarf the sanction. That is a factor in deciding whether to propose an agreed outcome, and it should be weighed early rather than at the door of the hearing.
Reports reaching the SRA have risen sharply, which increases the volume of matters capable of reaching referral. Our guide to SRA investigations sets out the figures.
If a matter may reach the tribunal
- Establish the certification date, since it determines which standard of proof applies
- Gather contemporaneous records before memories are the only evidence
- Take specialist regulatory advice early, not after the Rule 12 statement arrives
- Assess costs exposure alongside the likely sanction when deciding whether to contest
- Consider whether an agreed outcome is realistic, and remember the tribunal can refuse one
- Assume the judgment will be published and searchable against your name
Frequently asked questions
What is the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal?
An independent statutory tribunal created by the Solicitors Act 1974, which hears serious misconduct allegations referred predominantly by the SRA. It is independent of the regulator and holds powers the SRA does not, including suspension, striking off and unlimited fines.
What standard of proof does the SDT apply?
The civil standard, the balance of probabilities, for all first instance cases certified as showing a case to answer on or after 25 November 2019. Cases certified before that date remain subject to the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt.
Who sits on an SDT panel?
Three members under rule 9 of the Solicitors (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules 2019: two solicitor members and one lay member. The President may appoint one of them as chair.
Is striking off permanent?
Not in law. Section 47(1) of the Solicitors Act 1974 allows a former solicitor whose name has been struck off to apply to the tribunal for restoration to the roll. Restoration is uncommon and particularly difficult where dishonesty was found, but the route exists.
Can SDT decisions be appealed?
Yes, to the High Court. Appeals operate as reviews rather than rehearings, and generally succeed only where a specific legal or procedural error can be identified rather than where the appellant disagrees with the tribunal’s assessment.
Does the SDT cover Scotland?
No. The SDT covers England and Wales. Scotland has a separate body, the Scottish Solicitors’ Discipline Tribunal, with its own rules and procedures.
What is an agreed outcome?
A resolution proposed jointly by the SRA and the respondent and put to the tribunal for approval under its practice direction. The tribunal considers whether to accept it and is not bound to approve what the parties have agreed.
The key points
- Independent of the SRA: it adjudicates rather than prosecutes, and it does dismiss allegations
- Balance of probabilities since 25 November 2019: a materially lower threshold than before
- Three members, one lay: constituted under rule 9 of the 2019 Rules
- Strike off is not legally permanent: section 47(1) provides a restoration route, rarely successful
- Costs can exceed the fine: weigh the financial exposure of contesting allegations early
The practical takeaway
The tribunal’s significance is not simply that it can strike solicitors off. It is that since 2019 it does so on the civil standard, which changed the calculation for every contested allegation, and that its judgments are published and permanent in a way the sanctions themselves are not.
For practitioners the useful response is documentary rather than defensive. Where the question is what was more likely than not, the contemporaneous record decides it, and that record is created long before anyone anticipates a referral.