Who Pays What

Solicitors Regulation Authority vs Legal Ombudsman

Who Pays What

SRA vs Legal Ombudsman

Let’s untangle the funding and function of two regulatory bodies that share legal sector backing but differ in reach — revealing a quiet structural tension at the heart of legal accountability.

Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA)

• Funding Source: Predominantly through practising fees paid by individual solicitors and law firms. Though collected by the Law Society, these fees are earmarked directly for regulatory operations.
  • Mandate: Oversees professional conduct across the entire legal profession — including firms and individuals — with authority to investigate and impose disciplinary measures.
  • Scope: Broad regulatory focus beyond individual client complaints.

Legal Ombudsman (LO)

• Funding Source: Funded by law firms through an annual levy, scaled according to firm size and turnover.
• Mandate: Investigates complaints raised by clients (service users), not the general public.
• Scope: Limited to service dissatisfaction — no authority over broader misconduct unless it directly affects a client relationship.

Conflict of Costs — Accountability vs Accessibility

Yes, all regulated firms contribute financially to both systems.

But only clients can access the LO’s complaint pathways, while the SRA may decline jurisdiction if misconduct falls outside headline breaches — especially where mishandling occurs within active legal proceedings.

This creates a silent structural contradiction:

• Legal firms fund two regulators
• The public faces harm but cannot trigger both systems
• Misconduct in adversarial scenarios falls between the gaps
• Each body can defer to the other — leaving no clear route to resolution

In short: a double-funded framework that creates procedural escape routes instead of closing them.

Personal Position Statement

The public is being asked to place trust in regulatory bodies whose funding — while not paid directly by solicitors or firms — nonetheless depends on money sourced from within the legal sector. That financial connection creates a structural pressure point.

I have no definitive proof of compromised intent, but I believe it needs to be said:

These bodies appear more invested in protecting financial flows than in shielding the public from harm.

Consent, Merger, and the Law Society Shield

Summary of Contradictions

This capsule was prompted by a formal complaint response dated 26 March 2025 from a senior solicitor at the firm that took over my case. His invocation of the “Law Society Standard” as justification for billing practices triggered a full review of all documents and receipts relating to my Case.

What followed was not only a deeper look at two Notices of Change of Legal Representative filed in October and November 2022 — it triggered a wider review of all billing and procedural records.

This revealed a pattern of:

• Misused consent language
• Lack of transparency during a firm merger
• Strategic references to institutional standards used to deflect scrutiny
• Duplicated cost entries that distorted the true financial liability

Consent Given — October 2022

• Email dated 25 October 2022 confirm that my solicitor filed a Notice of Acting “in accordance with my instructions.”
• The accompanying invoice dated 25 October 2022 includes detailed narrative of work undertaken, including the preparation and filing of the Notice.
• I acknowledge that consent was given, and the charge was expected.

Consent Not Given — November 2022

• Email dated 14 November 2022 introduces a merger between two law firms, stating:

“My firm have recently acquired another local… firm… I am obliged to file… a Notice of Change…”

• No prior notification of the merger was provided
• No updated Client Care Letter or terms of engagement were issued
• No opportunity was given to me to decline representation under the new entity
• The invoice dated 14 December 2022 includes the phrase “in accordance with your instructions” — despite no instruction being given for the merger or the second Notice.

Discounts as Narrative Cover

Both invoices (October and December) state that a “discount” was applied:

• October: £2,291.10 of work charged at £2,000
• December: £2,467.60 of work charged at £2,000
• No explanation is provided for either of the discounts
• The discounts are used to justify the final fee, but not to clarify the scope or necessity of the work
• This pattern recurs across multiple invoices, creating a smokescreen that obscures overcharging and bundling

The Law Society Shield — Complaint Response

• In response to my formal complaint, a senior solicitor wrote:

“Our invoices are prepared in accordance with the Law Society Standard.”

I believe this statement is used to imply institutional endorsement and discourage further challenge. However, from my understanding:

• The Law Society does not endorse individual invoices
• The reference to “standard” does not override the need for itemisation, transparency, or informed consent
• The phrase functions as a strategic deterrent, not a substantive defence

Clarification

The Law Society is not a regulator and does not validate solicitor invoices.

Billing practices must comply with the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s Principles:

• Principle 1 – Integrity
• Principle 4 – Service
• Principle 5 – Compliance
• Principle 7 – Trust

Especially where discrepancies and unexplained discounts are present.

Conclusion

This capsule exposes a pattern of:

• Misused consent language
• Procedural opacity during merger
• Unexplained discounts used to mask billing contradictions
• Institutional references used to deflect accountability

Together, these elements form a contradiction capsule that challenges both the procedural integrity and ethical transparency of the firm’s conduct.

Regulatory Reflection

The strategic invocation of the “Law Society Standard” in the complaint response prompted me to revisit the role of external regulators.

If internal complaint handling relies on institutional language to deflect scrutiny, then the SRA and Legal Ombudsman must be held to account for how they assess such claims.

I now intend to document my concerns regarding the handling of my complaints by both bodies, including missed contradictions, procedural deflection, and failure to engage with the full evidential record — or indeed the complainant.

The Record Is Not Yet Closed

Due to the reopening of the case file relating to the billing and response, this dossier has been updated as of August 2025 to reflect formal correspondence sent to the Solicitors Regulation Authority and Legal Ombudsman. Further entries are now likely.

Whether this record continues depends not on me, but on the regulators tasked with reading it — and the lawmakers who designed their remit.

If they continue to ignore a lay person’s documented truth, or disqualify written evidence because it doesn’t arrive dressed in Latin, that will confirm what this dossier already suggests:

That our legal system is not broken by accident.

It is imbalanced by design.

Every entry written here was born not from profession, but from lived experience — resilience, grief, and refusal to be erased.

I did not have a legal degree.

But I had precision.

Documentation.

A Statement of Truth.

If regulators cannot respond to that, then they are not responding to the public.

They are responding to protectionism.

This record is not closed.

It will remain open for however long silence chooses to hold power.

And the good news is: it will still be here long beyond my chapter here — because truth, once laid with care and clarity, doesn’t end.

It’s carried.

It’s honoured.

It finds its reader.

The structure was built to defer. The procedure made sure it did.

What follows is not a new complaint. It’s the collapse of process itself.

A capsule that documents how billing practices, consent language, and regulatory boundaries were used not to protect the public, but to protect the profession.

This isn’t a shift in topic. It’s the moment where structure becomes strategy—
And strategy becomes harm.

Next

Proven Procedural Collapse

Design & Copyright Owner Maureen Booth-Martin (MBM) © All rights reserved