Sra restricts solicitor from sole practice, citing public interest and regulatory standards
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has placed practising restrictions on Simon Barrie Hall, following a decision made on 8 May 2025 and published on 30 October 2025.
The regulator confirmed that Mr Hall’s practising certificate for the 2024/2025 year is now subject to formal conditions governing the way he may practise law.
According to the published outcome, the SRA’s decision was reached as part of a control of practice determination, which allows the regulator to impose proportionate restrictions on solicitors where necessary to uphold public confidence in legal services and ensure regulatory compliance.
Under the conditions set out by the SRA, Mr Hall is prohibited from practising as a sole practitioner or acting as the sole solicitor manager or sole solicitor owner of any authorised legal practice.
The decision further specifies that Mr Hall may not practise on his own account under Regulation 10.2(a) or (b) of the SRA Authorisation of Individuals Regulations.
These restrictions mean that while Mr Hall remains entitled to practise as a solicitor, he must do so within a regulated entity that is authorised by the SRA and cannot operate independently or assume sole managerial responsibility for a firm.
Embed from Getty Images
The published notice states:
“The above conditions are necessary in the public interest. They are reasonable and proportionate having regard to the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Authorisation of Individuals Regulations, and the regulatory objectives and principles governing regulatory activities as contained in section 28 of the Legal Services Act 2007.”
The SRA said the decision was made through its administrative process and did not arise from a disciplinary hearing before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT). No further details were provided about the circumstances leading to the imposition of the restrictions.
Conditions of this nature are typically applied in cases where the regulator determines that safeguards are required to ensure compliance with professional standards or to mitigate potential risks to clients or the public. They are not, however, findings of misconduct.
The SRA Authorisation of Individuals Regulations empower the regulator to restrict, suspend, or condition a solicitor’s practising certificate if doing so is necessary to meet the regulatory objectives of the Legal Services Act 2007, which include protecting and promoting the public interest, upholding the rule of law, and maintaining trust in the legal profession.
In similar control of practice decisions, the SRA has stated that restrictions are imposed only when considered reasonable and proportionate, balancing the solicitor’s right to practise with the regulator’s duty to protect the public and uphold the integrity of the profession.
The decision against Mr Hall falls within the category of practice control measures, which can include conditions preventing a solicitor from managing client funds, acting as a compliance officer, or operating independently.
The regulator emphasises that such measures are preventive rather than punitive, intended to safeguard clients and maintain regulatory confidence while allowing solicitors to continue practising under supervision or within authorised firms.
All SRA control of practice outcomes are published in accordance with transparency requirements and remain in force until formally reviewed or lifted by the regulator.
The SRA did not release details of any current or ongoing investigation into Mr Hall, and there is no indication that disciplinary proceedings are pending. The published notice confirms that the restrictions were deemed necessary solely in the public interest, consistent with the SRA’s obligations under section 28 of the Legal Services Act 2007.
Mr Hall’s practising rights therefore remain intact, but his ability to work independently or as the sole solicitor in charge of a law firm is temporarily restricted. The SRA has not indicated whether these conditions are time-limited or subject to further review.
At the time of publication, no firm details were listed for Mr Hall in connection with the decision.