Sexual misconduct in legal practice: regulatory developments, disciplinary trends, and the evolving approach of the SRA and SDT

Executive summary

This article examines the regulatory framework and recent disciplinary trends concerning sexual misconduct within the legal profession. We have reviewed the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) judgments concerning sexual misconduct published since June 2024, which reveal that serious sanctions for sexual misconduct continue to be given, with outcomes including striking off, lengthy suspensions and significant costs orders, though fines are rare. Notably, the SDT has, in some recent cases, anonymised judgments to protect respondents, which causes one to question the balance between open justice and individual rights. 

Sexual Harassment / Sexual Misconduct 

The Equality Act 2010 protects all workers from sexual harassment and the Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Act 2023 places a positive legal duty on employers to take reasonable steps to prevent it (find out more here). Section 26 of the Equality Act defines sexual harassment as any "unwanted conduct of a sexual nature… [with the] purpose or effect of violating [a person]’s dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for [that person]”. 

Law firms, like all employers, face a high degree of scrutiny when investigating allegations of sexual harassment. Investigations should be carried out in accordance with the firm’s policies and procedures and the SRA’s guidance (SRA | Internal investigations - Guidance | Solicitors Regulation Authority). Failure to follow a fair process may lead to a claim for unfair dismissal. For example, in one recent Employment Tribunal case, the way in which a law firm carried out its investigation into sexual misconduct allegations and its disciplinary process was criticised by the Employment Tribunal and resulted in a finding of unfair dismissal.

Reports of sexual misconduct in the legal industry have increased significantly following shifting societal values and the #MeToo movement. The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) stated that, between 2018 and 2022, there had been 251 reports made to them relating to potential sexual misconduct, compared to just 30 in the preceding five years. 

The SRA’s Upholding Professional Standards Annual Report 2022/23 stated that cases of sexual misconduct are some of the most serious matters they deal with and, in 2022/23, they referred 11 such cases to the SDT. One of those resulted in the first ever striking off of a solicitor for sexual misconduct where there had been no criminal conviction.

Other regulators are also considering their position in this area, for example the FCA has published a Policy Statement on tackling non-financial misconduct in financial services firms. You can read more on this here.

Recent news coverage has highlighted multiple reports of solicitors and barristers facing allegations of sexual misconduct, with related articles continuing to appear in the media at the time of writing.

SRA Sexual Misconduct Guidelines

On 1 September 2022, the SRA announced new guidance on sexual misconduct, setting out what the SRA expects from regulated firms and individuals. The SRA Principles set out the core ethical values required of those it regulates. Most relevant to allegations of sexual misconduct are those requiring integrity (Principle 5), acting in a way that upholds public trust and confidence in the profession (Principle 2) and acting in a way that encourages equality, diversity and inclusion (Principle 6).

The guidelines illustrate the different factors the SRA takes into account when deciding what behaviour might or might not amount to sexual misconduct, and when it may become a regulatory issue:

• Proximity – the closer the behaviour is to professional practice, the more likely regulatory action will follow.
• Seriousness of the conduct – seriousness is informed by all the circumstances surrounding the behaviour. 
• Criminality of the conduct – criminal convictions will be relied upon within any regulatory investigation, even in circumstances where the offence relates to an individual’s private life. Professional misconduct is, however, a wider concept than the criminal law, so an acquittal will not prevent the SRA from investigating. 
• Consent – this is complex, can be hard to determine and can be affected by seniority/inferiority, vulnerability, intimidation, and intoxication amongst other things.  
• Vulnerability – this includes, amongst other things, consideration of fragile health, age, disability, professional status/relationship, dependency.
• Intoxication – the SRA states that intoxication is never a defence to an allegation, but it may aggravate or mitigate the behaviour.  

Furthermore, the SRA expects firms to take a zero tolerance approach and to have “robust procedures and policies in place to properly manage and investigate complaints of sexual misconduct”.  Regulated firms and individuals have a duty to report to the SRA any facts or matters that they reasonably believe are capable of amounting to a serious breach of the SRA’s regulatory arrangements by any regulated person. 

SDT judgments related to sexual misconduct

We have analysed the SDT judgments published to their webpage (here), since June 2024 and set out those relating to sexual misconduct in the table below. 

Analysis of data 

1. We have identified 13 judgments, published since June 2024, which relate to sexual misconduct. Of these 13 judgments, 4 of them resulted in striking off, 6 in suspension and 1 was dismissed. 
2. The average length of suspension between these 6 cases was 17.5 months. 
3. Only one respondent (case 3) was issued a fine, this was in the amount of £41,875.44. As well as being fined, he was also struck off. 
4. Interestingly, in the other three cases where the respondents were struck off, no fine was issued. These were all matters where a criminal conviction was made against the respondents. The costs ordered in these three cases were relatively low, most likely due to the investigation requiring minimal input from the SRA and SDT. 
5. In every case where the allegations were proven, the respondents were ordered to pay costs, across them the average amount ordered was £39,425.25. 
6. Two judgments, case 1 and case 8, incurred costs significantly higher than the other judgments considered, being £85,501.10 and £95,389.92 respectively.
7. Only two of the judgments considered related to non-solicitors.  
8. On average, the hearing length of the above judgments was 1.9 days. The shortest hearing length was 1 day and the longest hearing length was 5 days (case 8).   

Judgments of note 

Case 12 

The Tribunal considered whether: (i) five pleaded events from 15 October 2020 occurred and were inappropriate and/or unwanted; (ii) any proven conduct was sexually motivated; and (iii) the proven facts breached SRA Principles/Code of Conduct. The Tribunal concluded that only the fact of a sexually motivated kiss was proved, however, that it was not shown to be non‑consensual. The Respondent’s participation in the kiss was inappropriate given his seniority and role in facilitating a drink‑fuelled work event. However, the Tribunal concluded that the Respondent did not: (i) behave in a manner lacking integrity; (ii) fail to maintain public trust and confidence in the profession; or (iii) abuse his position by unfairly exploiting clients or others. As such, the allegation failed and all allegations were dismissed with no sanction or costs.    

In brief, the Tribunal exercised caution due to the four year delay, the heavy intoxication of the only two eyewitnesses and the lack of independent physical evidence. They treated apology emails as attempts to resolve matters, and not admissions to the Applicant’s pleaded case. 

Notwithstanding the Tribunal’s wider concern about alcohol heavy workplace culture, the case was dismissed as the high thresholds for lack of integrity, undermining public trust or unfair advantage were not crossed.

We anticipate that a stricter approach may be taken by the Tribunal in similar circumstances where events took place after 26 October 2024 (the date the Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Act 2023 came into force), particularly where a firm has put in place reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment such as training to all staff, policy updates and a risk assessment.  

In addition, several changes in the Employment Rights Act 2025 will come into force in 2026 which will strengthen the obligations on employers, and the protections available to those who experience sexual harassment. In April 2026, sexual harassment became a qualifying disclosure for the purpose of whistleblowing legislation.  In October 2026, employers will be required to take all reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment, (the current test is reasonable steps (more information can be found in the Equality Law section of the Employment Rights Act tracker)). 

Whilst the allegations in Case 12 were ultimately dismissed, the Tribunal’s observations on alcohol-fuelled workplace culture and the evolving legislative framework are helpful when considering cases where misconduct is proven. Case 9 provides such an example, illustrating both the severity of sanctions imposed and the procedural questions that can arise in these proceedings.

Case 9

The Respondent, a partner at a large firm, admitted to making unwanted, inappropriate, and sexually motivated comments to a junior colleague during a firm social event. The SDT imposed a 24 month suspension and costs of £32,655.07, no fine was imposed. Notably, the SDT’s decision was published in anonymised form, a departure from usual practice, following an application under rules 35(9) and 35(10) of the Solicitors (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules 2019. These rules state that, if in the interest of justice, a Tribunal may anonymise a judgment where they are satisfied that not to do so would cause a person serious harm. 

The application was made jointly by the SRA and the Respondent, and it was supported by a jointly commissioned expert medical report. The report indicated that publication of the Respondent’s identity would pose a real risk to his life and be in contravention of his rights under Article 2 (right to life) and Article 8 (right to private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The SDT, by a majority, held that the medical evidence, detailing the risk of serious harm to the Respondent if identified, outweighed the public interest in open justice. The medical report detailed specific examples of serious incidents involving the Respondent and concluded that publication would act as a trigger to worsen still the already serious medical position.  

However, the dissenting member (the lay member of the panel), argued that the principle of open justice should prevail, especially given the nature of the misconduct and the potential for other complainants to come forward to the SRA. The judgment states that “the dissenting view was that despite the risk to life outlined in the Medical Expert’s report, the balance of the competing demands of the interests of open justice and the interests of the Respondent, for which there were safeguards in place, was such that the principle of open justice outweighed the Respondent’s rights.” 

The decision to anonymise the judgment protects the Respondent’s health and safety while maintaining a record of the type of sanction likely to be imposed for this type of behaviour. Whilst this is not the first time such a decision has been made by the SDT in relation to sexual misconduct cases, it will be interesting to see whether similar applications for anonymity become more popular going forward. Whilst we would hope that respondents would act honestly, there is a risk that some may attempt to obtain medical evidence of a similar nature to avoid the reputational damage which could follow a judgment. Given that reputational damage is considered to be one of the key deterrents of such behaviour, it may be undesirable for respondents to achieve anonymity more frequently. 

Moreover, even when respondents act with integrity, those possessing greater financial resources are typically better positioned to obtain costly medical expert testimony. 

Case 4 and case 10 

As stated above, the SRA regulates and can sanction non-solicitors who are employed by a regulated firm. The SRA and SDT can make a regulatory decision under Section 43 of the Solicitors Act 1974.  The SRA describe this as “if a non-solicitor has, for example, either been convicted of a criminal offence or been involved in a breach of our Standards and Regulations in connection with their involvement in a legal practice, this regulatory decision can be taken by us or the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal to control where and how they work. It means that if a firm regulated by us wants to employ or remunerate they must first get our written permission”. The deterrent effect of such orders should not be underestimated, as they impose long term career consequences on non-solicitors who might otherwise fall outside the scope of the more severe sanctions, such as striking off, that are available only against solicitors.

Conclusion

The regulatory landscape surrounding sexual misconduct in the legal profession has evolved significantly in recent years. The introduction of clearer guidelines, an expectation of zero tolerance, and the willingness to impose substantial suspensions, strike-offs, and costs reflect the seriousness with which these matters continue to be treated in a post #MeToo era. Recent cases demonstrate that the profession will not tolerate inappropriate behaviour, regardless of seniority or the absence of criminal convictions. While the anonymisation of judgments in exceptional circumstances highlights the need to balance open justice with individual rights, the overall trend is towards greater accountability and protection for those affected by sexual misconduct. This trend serves to uphold public trust and confidence in the profession, and reinforces the legal sector's commitment to integrity, equality, and a safe working environment for all.