SRA Apologises After Tribunal Orders £180,000 Costs Over Mishandled Case

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has apologised after being ordered to pay £180,000 in costs for a failed prosecution against a City lawyer. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) ruled that the proceedings against Simon James Price were improperly brought, highlighting critical failings in the regulator's decision-making process.

Tribunal Findings

The SDT found that the SRA had pursued its case despite an internal investigator concluding there was no proper basis for referral to the tribunal. This report, dated May 2023, was not disclosed to Mr Price until August 2024—over a year later—and was excluded from the SRA's June 2024 application to withdraw the case.

In its judgment, the SDT criticised the regulator’s lack of transparency, concluding that the interests of justice and fairness required disclosure of the investigator’s findings. The tribunal stated, "This was a case where, due to the SRA’s conduct, a costs order should be made… to ensure the regulator acted in a fair, transparent and responsible manner."

The proceedings, which centred on alleged due diligence failures dating back over a decade, were eventually withdrawn. The SRA acknowledged it should have acted differently, with a spokesperson stating, "We have learned lessons about our processes, and we are sorry that Mr Price had to go through parts of the disciplinary process unnecessarily."

Broader Trends: Complaints and Enforcement

This case is set against a backdrop of rising complaints and increasing regulatory activity by the SRA.

While complaints about service and first-tier disputes have steadily risen, conduct complaints have remained stable. The increasing volume of complaints underscores the pressures facing the regulator.

Regulatory enforcement has intensified, with a marked rise in SDT referrals and fines for anti-money laundering (AML) breaches. Warning letters increased fivefold in 2023, reflecting heightened scrutiny of transparency compliance.

Although the SRA exceeded targets for AML compliance visits, transparency rule adherence fell short, with just 85% compliance.

A Question of Accountability

Critics argue that while the SRA is increasing its enforcement activity, cases like Mr Price’s highlight systemic failings in decision-making and fairness. Delays, non-disclosure, and questionable prosecutorial decisions risk undermining confidence in the regulator’s ability to enforce professional standards effectively.

Legal experts have called for independent oversight to address these recurring issues. Without significant reform, concerns will persist that the SRA’s regulatory priorities are misaligned, focusing too much on process and not enough on substantive justice.

As the SRA faces increasing complaints and enforcement demands, the case of Simon James Price serves as a reminder of the importance of fairness, transparency, and accountability in regulation—principles the regulator must work harder to uphold.

Disclaimer

The content provided in this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. All views expressed are based on publicly available information and are not intended to critique any individual or organisation unfairly.