The short answer
SRA investigations are rising, and the regulator has published the figures. In the six months to the end of April 2026 the SRA reviewed 8,955 reports of potential misconduct, 58% more than the same period two years earlier, and escalated 1,322 of them for formal investigation. It was handling ongoing investigations linked to 1,844 reports at the end of April. The scope has widened too: alongside dishonesty and client money, firms are being examined on anti-money laundering systems, supervision, workplace conduct and AI governance, and weak systems alone can now attract scrutiny.
The numbers the SRA published
- 8,955 reports of potential misconduct reviewed in the six months to 30 April 2026, an average of 1,493 a month
- 58% increase on the same six months two years earlier
- 1,322 reports escalated for formal investigation, averaging 220 a month, up 41% on two years ago
- 1,844 ongoing investigations as at 30 April 2026
- £36.2m to £40.4m: the proposed increase in the investigations and enforcement budget
- Under consultation: a revised test for when a report should lead to an investigation
What the data actually shows
The SRA released the figures in May 2026, and they are unambiguous. Jonathan Peddie, its executive director for investigations, enforcement and litigation, described an unprecedented increase in the reports the regulator receives, putting significant pressure on its approach and resources. The regulator has said it diverted resources from elsewhere as a short-term measure and does not regard that as sustainable.
The trend was visible before that. In its business plan for November 2025 to October 2026, the SRA reported a 30% increase in reports between November 2024 and September 2025 against the previous year, rising to 42% over June to September 2025, with investigations opening at an average 46% higher month on month. It also said it was not yet clear what is driving the increase.
Two things follow for firms. Volume alone raises the statistical likelihood of a report about your firm reaching an investigator. And the SRA is consulting on a revised test for when reports should lead to an investigation, alongside a review of its existing caseload to confirm cases are proportionate and well founded, so the threshold itself may move.
A shift towards proactive regulation
The clearest structural development is the SRA’s more proactive approach to supervision and enforcement. Firms may face scrutiny where there has been no proven dishonesty and no direct financial loss to clients. Weak systems, poor records, inadequate supervision or ineffective internal procedures can themselves raise regulatory concerns.
The Court of Appeal decision in Wingate and Evans v SRA; SRA v Malins [2018] EWCA Civ 366 remains the anchor. The court explained that integrity involves more than mere honesty and is tied to the ethical standards of the profession. That is why investigations can arise from conduct falling short of dishonesty but still affecting public trust.
AML pressures continue to intensify
Anti-money laundering compliance remains one of the largest drivers of scrutiny. Firms doing conveyancing, corporate transactions, private client and high-value commercial work face detailed examination of client due diligence, source of funds, source of wealth and ongoing monitoring. The document underneath all of it is the firm wide risk assessment required by regulation 18, which is the failing that appears most consistently in published outcomes.
Recent enforcement shows the exposure. In SRA v Clyde & Co LLP and Edward Henry Mills-Webb, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal imposed a £500,000 fine on the firm and an £11,900 fine on a former partner after admissions relating to AML failures.
The Dentons litigation matters for a different reason. In Dentons UK and Middle East LLP v SRA [2026] EWCA Civ 508, the Court of Appeal considered AML failings involving source of wealth and source of funds checks for a high-risk client. A breach of the money laundering regulations is serious, but it does not automatically amount to professional misconduct: seriousness and context still have to be assessed against the relevant standards.
Supervision and firm governance
Supervision attracts closer attention now, and the question is not whether a firm has supervisors on paper but whether work is actually directed, reviewed and controlled.
In Mazur and Stuart v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2026] EWCA Civ 369, the Court of Appeal confirmed that unauthorised staff may carry out certain litigation tasks for an authorised person, but only where proper direction, management, supervision and control are in place. That has direct relevance for firms relying on trainees, paralegals, consultants and remote teams. Where the compliance duty sits is a related question, covered in our guide to what a COLP is and who can hold the role.
Technology, cybersecurity and AI governance
Technology risk is now a mainstream regulatory issue. Firms hold large volumes of confidential data while relying on cloud platforms, remote working and AI tools.
The key authority is Ayinde v London Borough of Haringey; Al-Haroun v Qatar National Bank [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin), where the Divisional Court dealt with fabricated citations placed before the court and made referrals to the SRA and the Bar Standards Board. Roughly fifty such cases have now been reported in England and Wales, and we set out what firms need to change in our guide to fake AI citations in court.
AI may assist with research or drafting, but it does not shift professional responsibility. Firms need clear positions on confidentiality, verification, supervision and client data security, and need to be able to show those positions are followed rather than merely written.
Workplace conduct under the spotlight
Workplace culture is treated as a regulatory issue, not solely an HR one. Allegations of bullying, harassment, discrimination or inappropriate behaviour can raise questions about integrity and public trust, and the SRA has said its caseload increasingly includes matters such as sexual harassment, bullying and offensive communications.
In Beckwith v SRA [2020] EWHC 3231 (Admin), the High Court recognised limits to the regulator’s reach into private life, while accepting that seriously abusive conduct by a senior lawyer towards a junior colleague can damage public trust in the profession.
Financial controls and client money
Financial pressure across the sector is adding to regulatory risk, and client account issues remain among the most serious. The SRA has repeatedly described client money as sacrosanct, a principle running through authorities such as Bolton v Law Society and Levy v SRA.
Fuglers LLP v SRA [2014] EWHC 179 (Admin) remains relevant. It concerned improper use of a client account as a banking facility, a risk closely tied to fraud and money laundering concerns. The regulator is separately consulting on advance notification when firms start holding client money or reach heads of terms on a merger, which points to where supervision is heading.
Frequently asked questions
How many SRA investigations are there?
As at 30 April 2026 the SRA was handling ongoing investigations linked to 1,844 reports of potential misconduct. In the preceding six months it reviewed 8,955 reports and escalated 1,322 of them for formal investigation.
Why are SRA investigations increasing?
The volume of reports has risen sharply, by 58% over two years on the SRA’s own figures, and the regulator has said it is not yet clear what is driving the increase. Alongside volume, the scope of scrutiny has widened to cover systems, supervision, workplace conduct and technology governance rather than dishonesty alone.
Can a firm be investigated without any dishonesty?
Yes. Weak systems, inadequate records, poor supervision or ineffective procedures can raise regulatory concerns in their own right. Wingate and Evans v SRA confirmed that integrity is a broader standard than honesty.
Does an AML breach automatically mean misconduct?
No. In Dentons UK and Middle East LLP v SRA the Court of Appeal held that a breach of the money laundering regulations must be sufficiently serious to amount to professional misconduct under the relevant standards. The obligation to comply with the regulations is unaffected.
Is the threshold for investigation changing?
Possibly. The SRA has said it will consult on a revised test for when reports should lead to an investigation, alongside a review of its existing caseload to confirm cases being pursued are proportionate and well founded.
What firms should prioritise
The practical list is unchanged but the odds have shifted: AML audits, supervision reviews, an AI position, cyber incident planning, workplace conduct procedures and client account controls. What matters is that written policies alone will not carry a firm through an investigation. The evidence is in file reviews, training records, audit trails and clear management accountability, and it has to exist before the report lands rather than be assembled afterwards.
Rising investigation numbers do not by themselves mean professional standards are falling. They reflect an environment where expectations are broader and monitoring is more sophisticated. To see where your firm currently sits, our SRA Compliance Readiness Score covers eight compliance dimensions in about eight minutes, alongside our other free tools for solicitors and law firms.