Since the SRA first introduced its guidance on publication back in September 2016, the legal profession has been increasingly exposed to a regime of growing transparency and accountability. Now, nearly a decade on, the SRA’s most recent update to its Guidance on Publishing Regulatory and Disciplinary Decisions (published 2 June 2025) introduces further clarity, greater structure, and a reshaped approach to how long decisions stay in the public eye.
Why Does the SRA Publish Regulatory Decisions?
The SRA has long asserted that its approach to publishing decisions is about serving the public interest. It’s a balancing act—on one hand, ensuring transparency and promoting public trust in the profession; on the other, recognising the potential impact of publication on the individual solicitor, particularly around mental health and future employment prospects.
This latest iteration of the guidance provides an enhanced framework for deciding how long decisions should be published for, and under what circumstances publication might be withheld, redacted, or removed.
What’s New in the June 2025 Guidance?
Clearer Publication Timelines
One of the most significant changes in the 2025 update is the introduction of a detailed matrix of decision publication periods, linked to the severity of the sanction or control imposed.
Whereas the 2016 guidance typically saw most decisions published for three years by default, the new version is more nuanced:
- SRA Rebukes: Still published for three years.
- SRA Fines (Band A & B):
- Firms: 5 years
- Individuals: 3 years
- SRA Fines (Band C & D):
- Firms: 10 years
- Individuals: 5 years
- SDT Fines:
- Under £15,000: 3 years (individuals), 5 years (firms)
- Over £15,000: 5 years (individuals), 10 years (firms)
- SDT Strike-Offs: Published indefinitely by the SRA and for up to 60 years by the SDT.
This is a marked departure from the blanket approach of the past, and reflects a growing emphasis on proportionality: serious sanctions stay in the public domain longer; lesser ones fade more quickly.
Expanded Categories of Publication
Another important development is the broader list of regulatory decisions that the SRA may publish if it considers it in the public interest. This includes:
- Ongoing investigations in high-profile or publicly debated cases.
- Decisions to approve the employment of struck-off solicitors or non-solicitors subject to section 43 orders.
- Refusals to issue practising certificates.
Although these powers existed before, the guidance now explicitly codifies when and why they might be used, especially where a lack of regulatory commentary might lead to damaging speculation or misinformation in the media.
More Emphasis on Individual Impact
The 2025 update builds in stronger safeguards for the wellbeing of those subject to regulatory decisions. The SRA commits to redacting, anonymising, or reducing published information where it might disproportionately affect a solicitor’s mental health, safety, or privacy. But—crucially—the bar remains high. As the guidance makes clear, embarrassment, reputational harm, or financial impact alone are not enough to prevent publication.
The SRA provide an example of this. A solicitor rebuked following a Public Order Act 1986 offence submitted medical evidence suggesting that the stress that would arise from publication would pose a risk to their life. The SRA ultimately decided not to publish, on the condition that the solicitor should inform any new employer of the sanction and notify the SRA if their role were to change.
The Historical Position – A Simplified Approach
When the SRA first introduced guidance on publication in 2016, the emphasis was on transparency and consistency, but without the layered, detailed timelines we now see. Most decisions—rebukes, fines, and conditions—were published for three years. There was little variation for different sanction types or severity, and the guidance lacked detailed criteria for withholding or redacting publication.
Also absent in earlier iterations was the strong language around the SRA’s duty to consider the solicitor’s wellbeing. While the 2016 guidance included references to proportionality, it did not provide examples or structured mechanisms for withholding publication in exceptional circumstances.
Decision Removals and Reviews
A subtle but welcome addition in the new guidance is a clearer route for solicitors to request removal of published decisions where circumstances change. The SRA will now consider applications to remove or update decisions on a case-by-case basis, particularly where new information (such as health deterioration) comes to light. Requests relating to SDT-published judgments must, of course, be made to the Tribunal itself.
This signals a modest softening of the approach—recognising that, in some instances, indefinite publication may no longer serve the public interest after a period of rehabilitation or material change in circumstances.
Final Thoughts
The June 2025 update is, in many ways, a maturing of the SRA’s publishing regime. It moves away from a one-size-fits-all model towards a more tailored, graduated approach—recognising that not all regulatory decisions are created equal. It also represents a more human touch, acknowledging the real-world impact of publication on mental health, while preserving a strong commitment to public accountability.