New research, which we jointly commissioned with the Legal Services Board, has shown that the public and solicitors are generally willing to use technology to help access and deliver legal services.

Law firms required to provide data under new AML requirements

06 June 2022

News: More than 6,000 law firms in England and Wales who fall within scope of anti-money laundering regulations are to be required to provide us with new data on the scale and potential risk of their work.

Tell us about your work within scope of the money laundering regulations

19 May 2022

As an anti-money laundering supervisor under The Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017, we have to assess the risk of the law firms we supervise.

Tender for Intervention Archive Services

14 October 2021

We exercise statutory powers to close down a law firm (known as an intervention), which can involve the collection and management of the storage of files and documents.

Legal services contract tender – expressions of interest wanted

14 September 2021

We are looking to appoint a legal firm to work in partnership with us to deliver legal services relating to disciplinary proceedings and other litigation and legal advice.

Kingly intervention files

02 July 2021

We closed down Kingly Solicitors and its network of firms in August 2020 to protect the interests of its clients. When we close down a firm, we take control of its finances and case files.

Solicitor firms – affordable, value-for-money services?

16 February 2021

We've all seen the research that shows most people don't use the services of a solicitor when they have a legal problem - around nine out of ten ask friends for help, try to resolve the issue themselves, or don't do anything at all. So, why?

Solicitors Regulation Authority v Solicitor Z

14 January 2021

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT), which is independent of the SRA, has today published its findings in relation to two applications brought by Mark Mansell, a solicitor identified in the SDT proceedings as Solicitor Z, to dismiss the proceedings on a summary basis because there was no case to answer, alternatively to stay them on the basis of Mr Mansell's physical health.