In agreement?

In recent years, the Solicitors Regulatory Authority (SRA) has increasingly relied on regulatory settlement agreements (RSAs) to resolve disciplinary cases involving solicitors. An RSA allows a case of alleged misconduct to be concluded by agreement, without a full hearing before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT). 

The SRA often presents an RSA as a pragmatic tool to achieve a swift outcome in the public interest, avoiding protracted proceedings. However, this growing use of RSAs has sparked debate about whether they strike the right balance between efficiency and fairness. Some practitioners caution that, in practice, an RSA can feel less like a mutual agreement and more like a one-sided deal driven by the regulator’s considerable power.  

What is an RSA?

An RSA is essentially a formal agreement to settle a disciplinary matter between the regulator and a regulated firm or individual. Instead of pursuing the full disciplinary process (which could culminate in a public hearing before the SDT), the solicitor typically admits to certain breaches or facts and accepts a sanction, such as a fine, reprimand or conditions on practice. In return, the SRA agrees to conclude the matter on these terms without a tribunal hearing. The SRA says that RSAs enable it to reach “appropriate outcomes swiftly, efficiently and at proportionate cost”. 

There is no automatic right to an RSA. If a solicitor declines a proposed RSA, the case will usually proceed to an SRA adjudicator and potentially to the SDT for a full hearing. This route often carries the risk of a higher penalty and greater cost exposure for the solicitor than the RSA offer. An agreed RSA outcome has the same status as a disciplinary sanction imposed through the usual process – it is binding and published as a matter of public record. An RSA, therefore, is not a private settlement but an official resolution of a regulatory breach.

In practical terms, the SRA may propose an RSA after an investigation, once it believes a breach of the rules has occurred and a certain level of sanction is warranted. The solicitor is presented with a draft agreement outlining the admissions and the proposed sanction. Common sanctions in RSAs include fines (often calculated as a percentage of firm turnover or individual income), reprimands or rebukes, conditions on a practising certificate, or undertakings (for example to undergo additional training). If the solicitor agrees to the terms, both parties sign the RSA, and it takes effect. The outcome is then typically published by the SRA, usually by way of a notice on the SRA website. 

How are RSAs used in practice?

The SRA’s increasing use of RSAs reflects a broader trend toward resolving regulatory issues through agreement. It has become common to use an RSA to deal with a range of misconduct matters, particularly breaches of anti-money laundering (AML) requirements. The primary appeal of the RSA process is its efficiency. From the regulator’s perspective, reaching a settlement saves considerable time and resources compared to a tribunal hearing. It also provides certainty of outcome and a quicker intervention to protect the public.

For the regulated firm or solicitor, an RSA can likewise offer advantages. It brings a faster resolution to an issue that might otherwise drag on for months or years. This swift outcome can reduce the stress, cost and disruption that a looming disciplinary case causes to a practitioner or their firm. By agreeing to an RSA, a solicitor often avoids the risk of a public hearing and the possibility of a more severe penalty that could be imposed by the SDT. An RSA can be a way to draw a line under an incident and move forward, which can be attractive when the evidence of a breach is clear, and the solicitor just wants to resolve the matter with minimal fallout.

So, when both the regulator and the regulated person engage in good faith, an RSA can yield a fair result more quickly than the adversarial route. This can benefit not just the individuals involved but the whole profession, by freeing up the SDT to hear truly contested or very serious cases. 

The practical reality, however, is that an RSA is still a disciplinary sanction – not a negotiation between equal parties. The SRA, as the regulator, sets the terms of the deal, and so there is an inherent imbalance of power. In offering an RSA, the SRA frames it as an opportunity for the solicitor to accept a measured outcome now, rather than face the uncertainty of a tribunal later. This dynamic means that while RSAs are presented as a consensual resolution, the context in which a solicitor consents to an RSA is strongly influenced by their desire to avoid more severe consequences.

Criticisms and concerns

Despite their intended benefits, RSAs have faced significant criticism. Commentators say that the SRA’s use of RSAs may compromise fairness and exert undue pressure on those facing allegations. Some of these main criticisms include the following:

• In theory an RSA is an ‘agreement’, but in practice its terms are largely dictated by the SRA. Solicitors often find that RSA offers are presented on a take‑it‑or‑leave‑it basis, with little room to push back on the wording of admissions or the severity of the proposed sanction. The SRA is under no obligation to negotiate the outcome, and an RSA can feel one-sided. If the solicitor attempts to haggle over the details, the SRA may simply withdraw the offer. This lack of a back-and-forth negotiation phase leads some to question whether ‘agreement’ is a misnomer in many cases.
• The inherent power disparity between the regulator and the regulated is at the heart of many criticisms. The SRA holds the upper hand – it investigates, alleges the misconduct and decides the sanction it deems appropriate. Solicitors may feel intense pressure to accept an RSA, even if they believe they have a reasonable defence. The alternative is to contest the allegations at the SDT, which can be a daunting prospect. A tribunal fight brings risks of higher penalties, greater legal costs and very public proceedings. For many, the commercial and personal risk of rolling the dice at a tribunal is too high. This dynamic can make an RSA feel less like a voluntary settlement and more like an ultimatum, settled by the accused as the ‘least worst’ option. Some solicitors essentially surrender to the SRA’s terms simply to end an ordeal of investigation and uncertainty – a choice made under duress of circumstance.
• By resolving cases quickly, RSAs inevitably bypass the fact-finding scrutiny of a full hearing. Allegations are not tested in evidence before an independent tribunal when an RSA is used. This lack of an adversarial testing of the case means there is a risk that some settlements may not reflect the whole truth of what happened. A solicitor might agree to an RSA, even if they believe a breach is overstated or inaccurately characterised, simply to avoid a worse outcome. Important contextual factors or nuances might not be fully reflected in the agreed statement of facts. There is no judicial examination of witnesses, no cross-examination – and often no opportunity for the solicitor to put forward a robust defence once an RSA is on the table.
• Agreeing to an RSA may resolve the matter quickly, but it can still have lasting consequences for a solicitor’s career and reputation. One particularly controversial aspect is the so-called ‘acting inconsistently’ clause contained in many RSA documents. This clause effectively binds the solicitor to the admissions made in the agreement – after signing, they cannot later deny those admissions or criticise the process on pain of further disciplinary action. In practical terms, a solicitor who accepts an RSA is unable to later offer additional context or explain their actions beyond what is recorded in the RSA. For example, if asked by a potential employer or client about the matter, the solicitor cannot provide a fuller story that deviates from the agreed facts. Moreover, because RSA outcomes are public, the solicitor’s name and the admissions are a matter of record. This can be career-limiting, especially for junior solicitors or those aspiring to senior roles (such as judicial appointments or government positions) where integrity is scrutinised. The public notice of an RSA rarely captures the nuance behind the incident.
• While one motive for accepting an RSA is to avoid the costs of a tribunal, it does not mean RSAs are light on financial consequences: the fines contained in RSAs can be substantial. In some cases, the financial penalty is calculated based on the firm’s turnover or the individual’s income, which can lead to very large fines for those in bigger firms (even if the underlying breach was not egregious). 
• Another concern is that smaller firms and sole practitioners often feel they lack the financial ability to contest an SRA case through the tribunal. The legal costs of defending oneself could far exceed the fine or sanction at stake. This financial imbalance can force smaller practices to take the deal, because fighting might mean ruin. To compound matters, a successful defence at the SDT is highly unlikely to result in a costs order in the defendant’s favour.
• A further criticism of RSA usage is the perceived inconsistency in outcomes. Two solicitors who commit similar breaches might end up with very different sanctions in their respective RSAs. The lack of published reasoning (beyond a brief summary of facts and outcome) can create a sense of opacity. In particular, the way the SRA assesses the seriousness of misconduct for settlement purposes is not always clear to those outside the process. Even when facts aren’t in dispute, the SRA’s view on seriousness or mitigation can be subjective.

In summary, the common thread throughout these criticisms is a worry that RSAs, as currently used, may tip the scale too far in favour of administrative convenience, at the expense of the individual solicitor’s rights and interests. 

Potential reforms and improvements

The debate around RSAs has led to suggestions for reform to ensure they are used fairly and transparently. Here we suggest several improvements that could address the concerns while preserving the benefits of RSAs:

• One idea is to build in a clearer opportunity for the solicitor to engage in negotiations before an RSA is finalised. Rather than a simple yes / no to a pre-drafted agreement, there could be a formal discussion phase where the facts and proposed sanction are debated. This would make the process feel more collaborative and allow solicitors to give their input, helping to rebalance the dynamic so that the outcome is more of a true agreement. This step could also flush out any misunderstandings early on, ensuring the SRA fully appreciates the context of a case before finalising the terms of the agreement.
• To counter the one-sided nature of RSAs, some have suggested introducing an independent check on agreements. For example, before an RSA becomes final, an independent adjudicator or a small panel (perhaps including a representative from the profession) could review the settlement. This reviewer could confirm that the sanctions are within a reasonable range for the misconduct and that the solicitor is not admitting to more than is supported by the evidence. A safeguard like this would add a layer of accountability and could discourage any tendency by the regulator to overreach.
• The SRA could improve confidence in RSAs by being more transparent about how it uses them and by seeking feedback from the profession. This might include publishing anonymised summaries of cases to illustrate how certain factors (such as cooperation, past disciplinary history or the scale of the breach) influence its decision to offer an RSA and the level of sanction given. A more collaborative relationship between the regulator and the regulated on this issue would help rebuild trust.

Conclusion

Regulatory settlement agreements have quickly become a prominent feature of the SRA’s enforcement toolkit. They represent a significant shift in how disciplinary outcomes can be achieved – moving away from adversarial tribunal battles towards administrative agreements. In the right circumstances, RSAs can deliver clear benefits: swift enforcement, reduced costs, and the ability for both the regulator and the solicitor to put a matter behind them and move on. Especially where the facts are undisputed and the misconduct is at the lower end of the scale, an RSA can be a sensible, proportionate response.

However, the current use of RSAs also raises valid questions about their fairness, consistency and the pressure they place on individuals. An RSA is not just a bureaucratic formality; it can profoundly affect a solicitor’s livelihood and reputation. Therefore, it is crucial for any solicitor or firm faced with an RSA proposal to seek expert advice early and weigh their options carefully. 

Looking ahead, RSAs will likely remain an important part of the regulatory landscape, but there is room – and indeed a strong argument – for refinement of the process. The goal should be to ensure that an ‘agreement’ truly feels like a fair settlement, rather than an imposed outcome. Achieving this balance will help maintain trust in the regulatory system and ultimately serve the public interest, the profession and the regulator in equal measure.