By Gabriel Princewill-
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) is on the cusp of a potentially transformative shift in its regulatory role, as it prepares to be formally designated a “prescribed person” under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA).
This anticipated development, while technical in nature, carries profound implications for the culture of accountability within the legal profession in England and Wales.
AD: Capeesh Restaurant
At its core, the move is intended to make it easier—and crucially safer—for solicitors and other legal professionals to report wrongdoing, addressing longstanding concerns that the profession has struggled to reconcile its ethical obligations with the practical risks of whistleblowing.
The concept of whistleblowing in the United Kingdom has evolved significantly over the past several decades. Historically, individuals who exposed wrongdoing within organisations often did so at great personal and professional cost.
High-profile cases throughout the late twentieth century, including scandals in healthcare, finance, and public administration, revealed systemic failures where employees either felt unable to speak up or were actively discouraged from doing so.
AD: Oysterian Sea Food Restaurant And Bar
In response, the UK government enacted the Public Interest Disclosure Act in 1998, a landmark piece of legislation designed to protect workers from retaliation when they disclose information in the public interest.
PIDA amended the Employment Rights Act 1996 and introduced the concept of “protected disclosures,” offering legal safeguards against dismissal or detriment for those who report misconduct through appropriate channels.
Central to PIDA’s framework is the designation of “prescribed persons”—independent bodies or regulators to whom workers can safely disclose concerns. These organisations are deemed suitable recipients because of their oversight responsibilities within specific sectors. Over time, the list of prescribed persons has expanded to include regulators across industries such as finance, healthcare, and environmental protection.
However, despite the legal profession’s central role in upholding the rule of law, its primary regulator, the SRA, has not historically been included on this list. This omission has created a paradox: solicitors, who are bound by strict professional duties to act with integrity and report misconduct, have not enjoyed the same clarity or security in doing so as professionals in other regulated sectors. Misconduct in the legal profession is unbelievably widespread, so much that it brings the legal profession to disrepute.
The SRA’s application to join the prescribed persons list is therefore both a symbolic and practical step forward. Naomi Nicholson, senior regulatory executive at the SRA, framed the move as part of a broader strategy to root out unethical behaviour and strengthen confidence in the profession’s internal safeguards.
Speaking at a Westminster Legal Policy Forum on ethics on Thursday, Nicholson emphasised that the regulator hopes the designation will encourage more individuals—particularly in-house lawyers—to come forward with concerns about wrongdoing in their organisations.
Her remarks reflect an awareness that, despite formal ethical obligations, many legal professionals remain reluctant to report misconduct due to fears of retaliation, reputational damage, or career stagnation.
The challenges faced by in-house lawyers are especially acute. Unlike solicitors in private practice, who may have greater independence, in-house counsel are embedded within the corporate structures they advise. This proximity can create tensions between their duty to their employer and their duty to the rule of law.
Over the years, several high-profile corporate scandals have underscored the difficulties faced by internal legal advisers who identify wrongdoing but lack secure channels through which to report it. The collapse of major corporations, financial misconduct cases, and regulatory breaches have all highlighted instances where earlier disclosure might have mitigated harm, had appropriate protections been in place.
Stronger whistleblowing protections
The charity Protect, formerly known as Public Concern at Work, has long been at the forefront of advocating for stronger whistleblower protections in the UK. Drawing on decades of experience supporting individuals who have raised concerns, Protect has consistently argued that the effectiveness of whistleblowing regimes depends not only on legal frameworks but also on trust.
When workers believe that reporting wrongdoing will lead to meaningful action—and that they will be protected in the process—they are far more likely to come forward. Conversely, when reporting mechanisms are perceived as ineffective or risky, silence prevails.
Sybille Raphael, chief executive of Protect, has been a vocal supporter of the SRA’s bid to become a prescribed person, but she has also highlighted the limitations of the current system. Speaking at the same Westminster Legal Policy Forum, Raphael noted that, in practical terms, reporting concerns to the SRA currently offers no greater protection for whistleblowers than going to the press or posting on social media platforms such as LinkedIn.
This observation points to a critical gap between formal ethical expectations and the lived realities of legal professionals. While the SRA has the authority to investigate misconduct and enforce disciplinary measures, the absence of prescribed person status has meant that disclosures to the regulator do not automatically qualify for the full protections afforded under PIDA.
Raphael’s comments also reflect a broader concern about organisational culture within law firms and legal departments. She called on the SRA to take a more proactive approach in ensuring that internal systems for reporting wrongdoing are not only in place but functioning effectively.
This involves scrutinising whether law firms genuinely support whistleblowers or merely comply with formal requirements without fostering a culture of openness and accountability. Her suggestion that the SRA should challenge firms to “check whether systems are working or not” underscores the importance of moving beyond procedural compliance դեպի substantive change.
The historical context of whistleblowing within the legal profession adds another layer of complexity to the issue. Lawyers occupy a unique position as both officers of the court and representatives of their clients.
This dual role has traditionally emphasised confidentiality and loyalty, values that can sometimes conflict with the imperative to disclose wrongdoing. Over time, regulatory frameworks have sought to clarify these tensions, establishing circumstances in which disclosure is not only permitted but required. Nevertheless, the cultural legacy of discretion and caution continues to influence how legal professionals approach whistleblowing.
The anticipated designation of the SRA as a prescribed person may help to re-calibrate this balance. It is hoped that he change could reinforce the message that reporting wrongdoing is not a betrayal of professional obligations but an essential component of them. It may also align the legal sector more closely with other regulated industries, where whistleblowing is increasingly recognised as a vital tool for identifying and addressing systemic risks.
Yet, as with any regulatory reform, the effectiveness of the change will depend on its implementation. Simply adding the SRA to the prescribed persons list will not, in itself, guarantee that more whistleblowers come forward or that they are adequately protected. Trust must be built over time through consistent action, transparency, and accountability.
The SRA will need to demonstrate that it can handle disclosures sensitively, protect the identities of whistleblowers where appropriate, and take decisive action in response to credible concerns.
Moreover, the broader legal ecosystem that includes law firms, corporate legal departments, and professional bodies—will play a crucial role in shaping the impact of the reform. Organisations must ensure that their internal policies are aligned with the new framework and that employees are aware of their rights and responsibilities.
Training, communication, and leadership will all be essential in fostering an environment where individuals feel empowered to speak up.
The potential benefits of a more robust whistleblowing regime within the legal profession are considerable. Early detection of misconduct can prevent harm to clients, protect the integrity of the justice system, and enhance public confidence in legal institutions. In an era where transparency and accountability are increasingly demanded by society, the ability of the legal profession to police itself effectively is more important than ever.
One insider at the SRA told The Eye Of Media.com on the grounds of anonymity that ”the risks faced by whistleblowers should not be underestimated. Even with legal protections in place, individuals who raise concerns may experience isolation, stress, and uncertainty. Ensuring that these individuals are supported both legally and emotionally, will be critical to the success of any reform.”
The SRA’s expected recognition as a prescribed person represents a significant moment in the ongoing evolution of whistleblowing law and practice in the UK. It reflects a growing recognition that the legal profession must not only uphold ethical standards in theory but also create practical mechanisms to enforce them. By providing a safer route for disclosures, the change has the potential to strengthen the profession’s commitment to integrity and accountability.
However, as Sybille Raphael’s remarks make clear, designation alone is not a panacea. The real test will be whether the SRA and the wider legal community can translate this regulatory change into meaningful improvements in practice. This will require sustained effort, cultural change, and a willingness to confront uncomfortable truths about how wrongdoing is identified and addressed.
In the final analysis, the move to grant the SRA prescribed person status can be seen as part of a broader trajectory in which whistleblowing is increasingly recognised as a cornerstone of good governance.
Whistleblowing from its origins in the legislative reforms of the late 1990s to its current role in modern regulatory frameworks, has become an essential mechanism for safeguarding the public interest. The legal profession, with its unique responsibilities and challenges, is now poised to take a significant step forward in this regard. Whether it seizes this opportunity fully will depend on the actions that follow.
AD: Heritage And Restaurant Lounge Bar