Decision-making criteria

The relevant provisions are the:

• SRA Training Regulations 2011 Part 1 - Qualification Regulations, in particular regulations 12-15, 33 and 34
• SRA Admission Regulations 2011
• SRA QLTS Regulations 2011, in particular regulations 2 and 7
• SRA Authorisation Rules for Legal Services Bodies and Licensable Bodies 2011

Each relevant application form asks a series of questions related to suitability, based on the Test. Some questions are set in a broader way than the Test itself. For example, we ask whether the applicant has ever been made the subject of a disciplinary finding, sanction or action by a regulatory body. However, section 6 of the Test states that the application can only be refused if the finding/sanction/action was serious. The decision as to seriousness is for the SRA to make - applicants should disclose all matters that may be relevant.

Principles established by case law will be considered by the decision maker. The requirements of the Test are never an absolute bar - in all cases the applicant has the opportunity to explain the circumstances behind the issue and attempt to satisfy us that there is no negative impact on their suitability. Each case will be considered on its merits.

In making decisions, we are not concerned with punishment, reward or redemption but with whether there is a risk to the public or a risk that there may be damage to reputation of the profession. No one has the right to be admitted as a solicitor and it is for the applicant to discharge the burden of satisfying the Test.

Mental health and addiction

We do not refuse applications on the grounds of mental illness and/or addiction and the Suitability Test is not seeking to assess a person’s physical or mental fitness to be admitted, enrolled or authorised.

However, it may be the case that we will consider evidence or submissions from applicants in relation to their mental health or addiction if relevant in the context of reviewing their suitability under the Test, for example when reviewing any criminal convictions or failure to comply with regulatory requirements.

Each application will be determined on its own merits and the relevance of any evidence in relation to mental health or addiction will be determined by the decision maker, taking into account submissions put forward by the applicant. To ensure transparency in such cases, the decision will record if evidence of mental health or addiction has been considered and how it has been taken into account in the decision making process.

Criminal offences

We ask whether the applicant has ever been convicted by a court of a criminal offence that does not fall within the definition of 1.1 but which has an impact on their character and suitability. The decision-maker must be satisfied that the conviction(s) are of a nature which poses a danger to the public, clients, and/or the public's confidence in the legal process and the profession if they are to refuse an application on the basis of that conviction(s).

Disclosure

Self-disclosure of issues which may affect suitability/fitness - at the earliest opportunity - is fundamental to these applications. Where possible, we check other sources of information (such as the Criminal Records Bureau) for corroboration.

When matters come to light that have not been disclosed this should be treated as prima facie evidence of dishonesty; therefore section 3 of the Test gives the decision-maker the power to refuse the application. However, the applicant must be given the opportunity to rebut the presumption of dishonesty and explain why no disclosure was made.

Behaviour not compatible with that expected of a prospective solicitor or authorised role holder

This could include submission of falsified documents, such as degree certificates, pretending to be someone else through the applications process, and/or changing or amending appraisal documents (e.g. to give higher grades). This section gives us the ability to refuse applications where applicants have failed to disclose issues as it is evidence of dishonest behaviour.

It also allows us to consider issues which may fall short of a criminal offence or even conduct which might attract a caution but which may amount to improper conduct. It is important that the decision maker has before them all matters which may have a bearing on the suitability of the applicant.

Evidence

When considering any matter, the decision-maker will not seek to re-open the investigation, look behind the decision taken by the court/regulatory body/academic institution etc., nor cast doubt on the veracity of the decision taken. What the decision-maker will do is consider statements intended to explain or mitigate the conduct under consideration.

Rehabilitation

Rehabilitation cannot merely be evidenced through a period of time. The applicant must satisfy us that they have taken steps to rehabilitation of their own volition, and that they no longer pose a danger to the public or the public interest.

Additional requirements

The final part of the Test applies to applicants for roles covered by the SRA Authorisation Rules 2011 only. It allows us to look at the corporate history of an individual, in addition to their personal history, to establish whether there is any evidence which might call into question their fitness and properness.