The SRA Closed 10,382 Reports Without Further Action: What Can Litigants in Person Do When Solicitors Cross the Line?

1. The Blind Justice UK challenge

On 30 October 2026, The Law Society Gazette published Michael Cross’s report on calls for a public right to challenge decisions made by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA). The report concerned Edward Romain, founder of the access-to-justice charity Blind Justice UK, and his challenge to the regulator’s handling of a misconduct report.

According to the charity, the SRA had twice decided not to investigate concerns about a solicitor. Following a letter before claim threatening judicial review, the regulator agreed to withdraw both decisions and reconsider the original report. The SRA separately confirmed to the Gazette that it had reviewed its decisions and was reconsidering the report of potential misconduct.

Important: the reported withdrawal does not establish that a court found the SRA’s decisions unlawful, nor that the solicitor concerned committed misconduct. The concessions relate to the handling of the regulatory assessment. See Blind Justice UK’s published chronology and source extracts.

If a regulator makes material assessment errors, what meaningful remedy exists for a member of the public who cannot afford to threaten High Court proceedings?

That is a serious access-to-justice question. A regulator must be able to close unsubstantiated reports fairly. But the public must also be able to trust the process by which those reports are assessed.

2. What the SRA’s own figures reveal

The SRA Investigations and Enforcement Annual Report 2024/25 includes the following figures for November 2024 to October 2025:

Those figures do not prove that 10,382 meritorious complaints were wrongly rejected. Some reports fall outside the SRA’s jurisdiction, lack sufficient evidence or concern service matters better addressed elsewhere. The number of reports received also differs from the number dealt with; they are not necessarily the same cases.

The relevant question is whether every report is assessed properly, whether each material allegation is considered and whether the reasons for closure are sufficiently clear for the person who made it to understand what happened.

3. Solicitors’ duties towards unrepresented opponents

A solicitor’s professional obligations do not disappear because the person on the other side is unrepresented. This is particularly important in family proceedings, where one person may have professional representation and the other may be managing court deadlines and safeguarding issues entirely alone.

The SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors includes several directly relevant obligations:

• Paragraph 1.2: a solicitor must not abuse their position by taking unfair advantage of clients or others.
• Paragraph 1.4: a solicitor must not mislead or attempt to mislead clients, the court or others, by an act or omission.
• Paragraph 2.4: assertions, representations and submissions must be properly arguable.

The SRA’s Conduct in Disputes guidance recognises the need for special care when dealing with unrepresented or vulnerable opponents. It highlights tactics such as improper legal threats, unnecessarily short deadlines and oppressive or intimidating correspondence.

What conduct might justify a regulatory report?

• Knowingly making a material misrepresentation to the court.
• Attempting improperly to influence, conceal or alter evidence.
• Knowingly misrepresenting the contents of a court order.
• Making threats of legal consequences with no proper basis.
• Using correspondence to take unfair advantage of an unrepresented or vulnerable person.
• Conduct inconsistent with professional obligations of honesty, integrity or the administration of justice.

Whether any particular conduct crosses a professional threshold will depend on the evidence, context and seriousness. It is essential to distinguish what is alleged from what has actually been proved.

4. Why the SRA may reject a report without investigation

The SRA applies an Assessment Threshold Test. Its published guidance sets out three questions:

1. Does the information indicate a potential breach of professional standards or regulatory requirements?
2. If proved, would that potential breach be serious enough to justify regulatory action?
3. Is the alleged breach capable of proof?

An investigation ordinarily follows only when all three stages are met. This helps avoid disproportionate investigations and lets the regulator focus resources on serious concerns. The assessment must nevertheless engage adequately with the substance of the report.

If a report raises five separate issues, an assessment of just one issue may be incomplete. If documentary evidence is relevant but overlooked, a potentially serious breach may not be properly understood. A decision should also explain why the threshold is not met.

The regulator’s discretion is necessary, but the exercise of that discretion must be accountable. That is the distinction which matters in the Blind Justice UK controversy.

5. Can you challenge an SRA decision not to investigate?

Yes, you can request reconsideration, but you do not have a general statutory right of appeal. Under the SRA’s published complaints policy, the person who reported the concern should contact the handling team if they believe the decision is materially flawed or have new information that could affect the outcome.

The regulator may consider whether the correct procedure was followed, whether material information was considered, whether irrelevant material influenced the assessment and whether the appropriate standards were applied. It retains discretion over whether to review its regulatory decision.

The SRA also indicates that it does not ordinarily review decisions made a year or more previously unless exceptional circumstances exist. A person considering reconsideration should not delay.

Present the concern as calmly and accurately as possible. Avoid assuming that an unsatisfactory result is necessarily unlawful or that the regulator must believe an allegation simply because you do.

6. What if the problem is the SRA’s own service?

The SRA has a separate procedure for concerns about its service, including mistakes, unreasonable delay, poor communication, unprofessional behaviour, discrimination and bias. See its service complaints information.

It generally expects service complaints to be made within six months of the relevant event, subject to possible exceptions. The procedure may proceed from an initial response through the Corporate Complaints Team and, where appropriate, the Independent Reviewer of Complaints.

An application to the independent reviewer ordinarily needs to be made within 20 working days of the stage-two response.

7. Could judicial review provide a remedy?

Judicial review can challenge the lawfulness of decisions made by public authorities, including relevant decisions of a professional regulator. It is concerned principally with legal error, procedural unfairness or other recognised public-law defects, not simply whether the judge would have reached a different regulatory outcome.

Possible grounds in an appropriate case include failure to consider relevant evidence, applying the wrong legal test, procedural unfairness or an irrational or otherwise unlawful decision. The appropriate grounds depend on the facts.

The Blind Justice UK challenge is significant because threatened proceedings reportedly resulted in withdrawn decisions and reconsideration. It does not show that High Court litigation is an accessible or appropriate route for every complainant.

8. What should you do when the opposing solicitor acts improperly in Family Court proceedings?

Do not rely on the SRA to solve an urgent problem within your existing case. A regulator cannot ordinarily change a child arrangements order, decide disputed family facts or provide an immediate case-management direction. Those matters belong to the court.

If a solicitor’s conduct is affecting fairness, compliance with a direction or the presentation of evidence, identify the precise procedural problem. Depending on the facts and court rules, proportionate options might include:

• Comparing a contentious assertion with the latest sealed court order.
• Seeking clarification of a direction that is being misrepresented.
• Identifying relevant disclosure or procedural difficulties.
• Explaining, in neutral terms, how particular conduct prejudices your ability to participate.
• Making an appropriate application for case-management directions where justified.
• Obtaining specialist advice where there is serious alleged misconduct or risk of unfairness.

An illustrative example

Imagine that the opposing solicitor writes to say you have missed a disclosure deadline and threatens an adverse consequence, but the sealed order states a later date. The immediate task is to check the order, identify the precise discrepancy and respond calmly with the correct paragraph. If it affects the proceedings, ask the court for an appropriate direction. Whether the correspondence also amounts to professional misconduct is a separate assessment.

The most effective immediate preparation is often a chronology linked to original records. JSH Law’s Family Court Evidence and Chronology Help guide explains how to organise material without overwhelming the court.

9. Seven practical steps for litigants in person

If you are concerned about the conduct of a solicitor, the following approach can help you organise the facts and identify a meaningful remedy.

1. Establish precisely what happened. Record dated events and separate personal knowledge from assumptions and third-party reports.
2. Preserve original evidence. Keep complete emails, attachments, orders, relevant messages and their context; retain the original source, not only a screenshot.
3. Identify the actual concern. Is it misconduct, poor service, a litigation disagreement, possible breach of an order or a procedural problem?
4. Choose the appropriate route. The SRA, Legal Ombudsman and Family Court serve different functions.
5. Report the issue clearly. Link each concern to relevant evidence and a professional obligation, without presenting contested allegations as findings.
6. Read the decision carefully. If the report is closed, compare the reasons with the allegations actually submitted and identify any material flaw.
7. Protect your live proceedings. Keep meeting court deadlines; do not assume regulatory correspondence suspends or alters court obligations.

JSH Law’s Six-Question Check

This is a practical framework for evidence organisation, not a statutory legal test. Ask:

1. What exactly happened, and when?
2. What original evidence supports it?
3. What is established, disputed or still unknown?
4. Which professional duty or court direction is relevant?
5. What procedural, evidential or welfare consequence followed?
6. Which decision-maker can give the remedy I actually need?

See our Family Court Chronology Templates and Preparing Your Case Like a Barrister for further help.

10. What about poor service from your own solicitor?

The Legal Ombudsman provides a different route for eligible complaints about legal service quality. Ordinarily, you should first complain to the service provider. The Ombudsman can generally become involved after a final response or eight weeks without resolution.

Complaint limits generally include six months from a qualifying final response and one year from the act or omission, or when you should reasonably have known of the problem, subject to the applicable Scheme Rules and exceptions. Remedies may include an apology, fee reduction or compensation.

An unrepresented party who complains about the opposing solicitor will not ordinarily qualify for a Legal Ombudsman poor-service complaint merely because they corresponded with that solicitor. Where there are genuine professional conduct concerns, the SRA may instead be the appropriate regulator; where there is an active litigation problem, the court may need to deal with it.

11. Why wider scrutiny of the SRA matters

The latest controversy does not arise in isolation. On 3 September 2026, the Legal Services Board announced further regulatory action intended to secure improvements in SRA performance following scrutiny of major law-firm failures, including Axiom Ince, SSB Law and PM Law.

The Board identified problems around aspects of regulatory intervention, the effective use of intelligence, organisational capability, systems and governance. This is systemic oversight, not proof that every individual complaint closure was defective.

The Legal Services Board cannot simply overturn a particular report-closure decision. Its role is to hold legal services regulators to account for their overall performance.

What reforms would make a difference?

• Independent audits or sampling of decisions not to investigate.
• A defined mechanism for reconsideration where there is a material error.
• Clear, accessible reasons distinguishing lack of evidence, jurisdictional limitations and seriousness thresholds.
• Published information on reconsiderations, withdrawn decisions and recurring assessment failures.
• Procedures which remain fair to solicitors who face unproved allegations while offering meaningful accountability to the public.

Blind Justice UK has proposed wider reform, including stronger public challenge rights. Those proposals deserve careful consideration. Merely investigating every report would not necessarily improve justice; the aim should be proportionate, evidence-based and accountable regulatory decision-making.

12. JSH Law’s perspective: the imbalance matters

A represented party may have experienced lawyers, administrative resources and procedural knowledge that an unrepresented opponent does not possess. That imbalance does not itself establish unfairness or wrongdoing.

But an unrepresented person should not be expected to endure intimidation, misleading conduct or procedural exploitation as the price of being unable to afford legal representation. Equally, a complaints system must not be used to harass professionals simply because they represent an opposing party.

Professional regulation must protect both the public and the right of those accused of wrongdoing to a fair assessment. The Blind Justice UK challenge has brought attention to the quality of decisions reached before any formal disciplinary investigation begins.

The issue is not whether every complaint should succeed. It is whether every complaint is properly assessed, serious errors can be corrected and an effective remedy is accessible without extraordinary legal resources.

For litigants in person, that is an access-to-justice issue, not an abstract debate about professional regulation.

13. Frequently asked questions

Can I report the other party’s solicitor?

Yes. Anyone may report a conduct concern to the SRA. A routine disagreement over a case does not by itself establish professional misconduct.

Does the SRA have to investigate?

No. It applies a threshold test and may close reports that do not warrant a formal investigation.

Can I ask it to reopen a closed report?

You may request reconsideration where there is a material flaw or significant new information. Reconsideration is discretionary.

Can I appeal its decision?

There is no general statutory merits appeal for a member of the public who reported misconduct. Limited reconsideration and public-law remedies may be available.

Can the SRA change my Family Court order?

No. The court must address applications to vary or challenge orders through the appropriate procedures.

Can a solicitor take advantage of my lack of representation?

Solicitors are prohibited from abusing their position to take unfair advantage of others. That does not preclude robust lawful advocacy.

Does reporting a solicitor suspend court deadlines?

No. Continue complying with court orders unless the court changes them.

14. Primary sources and further reading

The sources below distinguish the charity’s published account, the regulator’s published guidance and statistics, current procedural rules and independent reporting.

1. The Law Society Gazette, 30 October 2026
2. Blind Justice UK: Judicial review of the SRA
3. SRA: Investigations and Enforcement Annual Report 2024/25
4. SRA: Reporting a Solicitor or Firm
5. SRA: Code of Conduct for Solicitors
6. SRA: Conduct in Disputes guidance
7. SRA: Decisions to Investigate Concerns
8. SRA: Complaints About Our Service policy
9. Legal Ombudsman: Consumer FAQs
10. Civil Procedure Rules: Part 54
11. Legal Services Board: September 2026 SRA oversight statement

Related JSH Law guidance

• Family Court Evidence and Chronology Help
• Family Court Chronology Templates
• Preparing Your Case Like a Barrister