Defending solicitors at the Tribunal, and appealing its decisions
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal is the independent tribunal that hears the most serious allegations against solicitors and others connected with the profession. It is the only body that can strike a solicitor off the roll.
If you have been referred, you are facing a formal, adversarial, public hearing in which your professional life is the subject matter. It is the point at which specialist representation stops being advisable and becomes necessary.
What is the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal?
The SDT is a statutory tribunal, independent of the Solicitors Regulation Authority. It is not part of the SRA, and it is not a court, though it operates much like one. Its panels are made up of two solicitor members and one lay member.
Most cases reach the Tribunal because the SRA has investigated a matter, concluded that its own sanctioning powers are not sufficient, and referred it. Applications can also be brought by other parties in limited circumstances.
The Tribunal decides two things: whether the allegations are proved, and if so, what sanction should follow.
The standard of proof
Since November 2019 the Tribunal applies the civil standard — the balance of probabilities. Before that it applied the criminal standard, beyond reasonable doubt.
This is not a technicality. It made the Tribunal a materially harder forum for respondents, particularly in dishonesty cases that turn on inference rather than direct evidence. Cases that would previously have failed on the standard of proof now succeed. Any defence built on how these cases used to run is built on the wrong foundation.
What the Tribunal can do
In ascending order of seriousness:
- No order, where allegations are not proved or no sanction is warranted
- Reprimand
- Fine — the Tribunal's fining power is unlimited
- Restrictions on practice, by way of conditions
- Suspension, either for a fixed period or indefinitely
- Strike-off — removal from the roll of solicitors
- Section 43 order, for non-authorised staff
- Costs, which frequently run to five or six figures and are ordered separately from any fine
Where dishonesty is proved, strike-off is the usual outcome. The exception is narrow: the Tribunal will impose a lesser sanction only in exceptional circumstances. Building the evidence for that argument — genuine, evidenced and properly presented — is demanding work, and it is work that has to start early, not at the door of the hearing.
How SDT proceedings run
Certification
The SRA files an application and a Rule 12 statement setting out the allegations and the evidence. A single solicitor member of the Tribunal considers whether there is a case to answer. This is a low threshold, but it is a real filter and it is worth engaging with.
Answer
You file an Answer stating which allegations are admitted and which are denied, and on what basis. What you admit here shapes the rest of the case, including costs. It should never be settled without advice.
Case management
Directions are set for evidence, witness statements, disclosure and hearing length. Getting the directions right — particularly on expert evidence and on what the SRA must disclose — is one of the least visible and most valuable parts of the defence.
The hearing
Hearings are held in public and listed publicly. The SRA calls its evidence, witnesses are cross-examined, you may give evidence, and submissions are made. Hearings run from a single day to several weeks.
Sanction and costs
If allegations are proved, the Tribunal hears separately on sanction. This is where mitigation, insight, health evidence, character evidence and remediation are deployed, and where the difference between suspension and strike-off is frequently made.
Judgment
Judgments are published on the Tribunal's website and are routinely reported by the legal press.
Appealing a Tribunal decision
An appeal against a decision of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal lies to the Administrative Court of the High Court. Both findings and sanction can be appealed, and the SRA has its own right of appeal against a sanction it considers too lenient.
Time limits are short and are enforced. If you are considering an appeal, take advice immediately — not after you have absorbed the judgment. An appeal on sanction is a different exercise from an appeal on findings, and the prospects of each need assessing honestly before costs are incurred.
We also advise on restoration to the roll for solicitors previously struck off. These applications are difficult and are refused more often than granted, but they are not hopeless, and they succeed on evidence gathered over years rather than arguments made in a month.
How we defend Tribunal proceedings
Preparation is the whole of it. A Tribunal case is won by knowing the documents better than the SRA does, by identifying at the outset which allegations are genuinely defensible and which are not, and by being straightforward with you about the difference.
Practically, that means:
-
- An early, honest assessment of the case against you, including where it is strong
-
- Deciding what to admit — early, credible admissions on allegations that cannot be resisted preserve credibility on the ones that can, and materially affect costs
-
- Scrutinising the SRA's evidence and disclosure, which is not always as complete as the Rule 12 statement implies
-
- Building the sanction case from day one: insight, remediation, health evidence where relevant, character evidence from people whose word carries weight
-
- Instructing counsel where the case needs it, and being clear with you about when it does not
-
- Preparing you properly for cross-examination, which for most respondents is the hardest part of the process
-
- Handling costs, which are frequently the outcome that does the most lasting financial damage
Where a case has run in parallel with a criminal investigation or an employment dispute, we handle those strands in the same firm. See our pages on criminal defence and employment law.
Recent cases Tamara prosecuted before joining Regulation Resolution
Tamara joined Regulation Resolution in October 2026 after prosecuting solicitors before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal on behalf of the SRA. She now defends solicitors.
These are recent cases she prosecuted for the SRA. They are not defence results. Her defence cases are ongoing, and we will publish those outcomes as they conclude. We share these because they show how the SRA builds a case and what the Tribunal treats as decisive.
Prosecuted for the SRA
Misleading a client – fine, dishonesty not proved
A Senior Associate was fined £15,000 for misleading a client three times about the status of an expert report. The Tribunal found breaches of Principle 7 and paragraph 1.4 of the Code of Conduct, but did not find dishonesty or lack of integrity.
Prosecuted for the SRA
Client money: falsified bank statements – struck off
A firm owner and COFA fabricated bank statements and a bank letter, including a fictitious £2.1 million balance, to conceal a shortage of client funds. All allegations were proved.
Prosecuted for the SRA
Client money: Agreed Outcome – fixed-period suspension
A sole practitioner who was COLP, COFA and MLRO admitted breaches of the Accounts Rules, the Code of Conduct and the SRA Principles. The Tribunal approved an Agreed Outcome and still imposed a suspension.
Prosecuted for the SRA
Exceptional circumstances argued – struck off
A junior solicitor admitted dishonesty in a pupillage application, including falsely claimed academic prizes. He relied on depressive illness as exceptional circumstances. The Tribunal found the dishonesty too serious to avoid strike-off.
Prosecuted for the SRA
Application to remove practice conditions – granted
A solicitor applied to lift conditions imposed in 2017 for misleading information in an indemnity insurance form. After seven years of compliance, training and insight, the Tribunal removed them.
If you have been referred, speak to us now
The earlier we are involved, the more of the case is still open to influence.
Frequently asked questions
About the author
Tamara Krupski-David is a regulatory defence lawyer acting for solicitors facing SRA investigations and disciplinary proceedings, and for healthcare professionals in fitness to practise matters. She brings more than 17 years' experience from inside the regulators themselves: formerly Head of Legal & Enforcement at the Solicitors Regulation Authority, a Senior Lawyer at the General Dental Council and a Legal Adviser at the General Medical Council.
As the former Head of Legal & Enforcement at the SRA, Tamara has deep insider knowledge of how the SRA puts allegations together — how investigations are scoped, how evidence is gathered and tested, and how allegations are framed and drafted. She uses that knowledge to find the weaknesses in the case against you before it is built.
Having personally conducted, and taken decisions on, some of the most serious, sensitive and high-profile cases brought before the professional tribunals, Tamara offers clients a genuine insider advantage — she knows how regulators build cases, where they are vulnerable, and what shapes their decisions.
She was admitted to the Roll of Solicitors of England and Wales in 2012 following the Qualified Lawyers Transfer Test, and as an Attorney of the Supreme Court of South Africa in 2005. She holds an LLB from the University of South Africa and a BA in Politics and English from the University of Cape Town.
Read Tamara’s full biography →
Written by Tamara Krupski-David, regulatory defence lawyer and former Head of Legal & Enforcement at the Solicitors Regulation Authority.
About Regulation Resolution Solicitors
Regulation Resolution Solicitors is a specialist regulatory defence practice. We act for regulated professionals facing investigation, disciplinary proceedings and fitness to practise allegations before their regulators and professional tribunals.
Regulatory defence is the whole of what we do, not a sideline to a general practice. Our lawyers have worked inside the regulators themselves, and we apply that understanding of how cases are built, assessed and decided from the first written response onwards — the stage at which regulatory cases are most often won or lost, long before any hearing.
Written by Regulation Resolution Solicitors. Last reviewed: 11th September 2026
This page is general information about the position in England, not legal advice on your situation.
