The issue of SRA’s overrepresentation of BAME solicitors has been examined repeatedly over the past two decades. The most recent enforcement data confirms that disproportionality persists, even though independent academic research has found no evidence of systemic racial bias within the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s internal decision-making processes.
If monitoring has established the pattern, the next step is considering what proportionate, evidence-based reforms may reduce structural imbalance while preserving regulatory independence and consumer protection.
The current data landscape
The SRA Investigations and Enforcement Diversity Monitoring Annual Report 2023/24 confirms that disproportionality remains visible at key stages of the enforcement pathway. Nineteen per cent of the practising population (of known ethnicity) is Black, Asian and minority ethnic, yet 26 per cent of concerns received involve BAME solicitors, and 33 per cent of matters taken forward for investigation involve BAME solicitors.
The amplification effect is particularly notable for specific groups. Asian solicitors represent 13 per cent of the practising population but account for 24 per cent of investigations. Black solicitors represent 3 per cent of the practising population but 6 per cent of investigations. These figures demonstrate that disproportionality increases as matters move through the regulatory process.
Official source:
https://www.sra.org.uk/sra/research-publications/investigations-enforcement-diversity-monitoring-2023-24/
What the 2024 independent research adds
The 2024 independent analysis commissioned by the SRA provides deeper insight into how disproportionality develops across stages of the enforcement process.
Full research hub:
https://www.sra.org.uk/sra/research-publications/overrepresentation-reports-sra/
Full analysis report (PDF):
https://www.sra.org.uk/globalassets/documents/sra/research/overrepresentation-sra-analysis.pdf
The research identifies the assessment stage as the point at which disproportionality increases most significantly, particularly when decisions are made to progress concerns to formal investigation. Even when variables such as firm size, practice area and source of report are considered, ethnicity remains statistically associated with progression outcomes. However, the analysis found no single causal trigger. Instead, multiple interacting variables combine to produce cumulative effects over time.
The issue has remained relatively stable over several years of monitoring, suggesting structural rather than episodic drivers. Importantly, the researchers concluded that internal decision-making processes were “for the most part robust.” At the same time, they emphasised that structural context, including firm size, market positioning and external referral patterns, significantly influences enforcement outcomes.
Practical steps to reduce disproportionality
Reducing SRA overrepresentation requires structural refinement rather than a reduction in enforcement activity. The objective is not to dilute standards, but to ensure that regulatory exposure reflects conduct risk rather than structural positioning within the legal market.
Refining assessment-stage decision frameworks
The independent research highlights the assessment stage as a critical pressure point in the enforcement process. At this stage, case officers determine whether a concern should progress to a formal investigation. Where decisions are borderline and require professional judgment, greater clarity in documentation and structured review mechanisms can improve consistency.
Developing clearer decision templates for recording progression rationale may help ensure that risk assessments are transparent and systematically reasoned. Introducing peer review mechanisms for borderline cases can add an additional layer of consistency, while periodic internal audits of assessment-stage data may identify emerging patterns before they become entrenched. These measures strengthen procedural transparency without compromising regulatory standards or independence.
Addressing firm size and structural exposure
The research confirms that firm size is strongly correlated with reporting and investigation rates. SRA diversity data indicates that 39 per cent of lawyers in one-partner firms are from BAME backgrounds, compared with 15 per cent of lawyers in firms with 50 or more partners.
Source:
https://www.sra.org.uk/sra/equality-diversity/diversity-profession/diverse-legal-profession/
Smaller firms often operate with more limited compliance infrastructure, fewer internal escalation mechanisms and higher levels of direct client exposure. These structural characteristics can increase regulatory visibility and vulnerability. Targeted compliance support for sole practitioners and small partnerships, including clearer guidance, template documentation and supervisory training, may reduce avoidable enforcement exposure while maintaining high professional standards.
Managing the impact of AML supervision
The interaction between supervisory intensity and firm type is another structural factor identified in the research. The SRA AML Annual Report 2024–25 records significant year-on-year increases in proactive AML engagement, with more than 30 per cent of inspected firms assessed as non-compliant.
Source:
https://www.sra.org.uk/sra/research-publications/aml-annual-report-2024-25/
Where minority ethnic solicitors are disproportionately represented in smaller firms, increased supervisory activity may have a disproportionate operational impact. Providing clearer AML guidance, accessible documentation frameworks and structured compliance support can mitigate this risk while preserving robust anti-money laundering oversight.
Recognising the role of the report source and practice context
The 2024 analysis also identified variation in outcomes depending on the source of reports. Concerns submitted by certain external bodies often carry greater evidential weight at the assessment stage. When combined with practice-area concentration and firm size, this dynamic may influence progression patterns.
Maintaining the credibility and seriousness of external referrals remains essential to risk-based regulation. However, structured monitoring of referral patterns may enhance understanding of how cumulative structural factors contribute to disproportionality over time.
Supporting the professional pipeline
Long-term structural reform extends beyond enforcement mechanisms. The SRA’s 2026 review of the Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE) confirms variation in demographic performance while emphasising that ethnicity alone does not determine outcomes.
Press release:
https://www.sra.org.uk/news/news/press/sqe-four-years/
Facts and figures:
https://www.sra.org.uk/sra/research-publications/sqe-four-years-facts-figures/
Professional distribution across firm types is influenced by educational access, socio-economic background and career-entry dynamics. Improving access to preparatory resources, mentoring opportunities and structured progression pathways may influence long-term exposure patterns within the regulatory system.
Preserving standards while reducing structural imbalance
Independent research makes clear that SRA’s overrepresentation of BAME solicitors cannot be attributed to a single decision point or internal bias mechanism. Instead, disproportionality emerges from the interaction between ethnicity and firm size, practice-area concentration, source-of-report patterns, supervisory intensity and broader market structure.
Any response must preserve consumer protection, independence of regulatory decision-making and proportionate, risk-based enforcement. The objective is not to reduce accountability. It is to ensure that regulatory exposure reflects conduct risk rather than structural positioning within the legal market.
Moving beyond monitoring
Monitoring has established the existence and persistence of disproportionality. The next stage requires structural refinement grounded in evidence.
Greater consistency and documentation at the assessment stage, enhanced compliance support for small and sole practices, continued publication of enforcement diversity data, ongoing independent research and sector engagement, and targeted supervision calibrated to firm context may collectively contribute to more balanced outcomes.
Reducing SRA overrepresentation is therefore not a matter of relaxing standards. It is a matter of strengthening procedural clarity, structural support and evidence-based regulation. By combining transparency with proportionate reform, the profession can move toward a regulatory environment in which outcomes are driven by conduct risk rather than structural exposure.
