The prescription of the SRA under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998

The Solicitors Regulation Authority ("SRA") received prescribed status this week under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998.

Section 43F(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which governs protected disclosures to prescribed persons provides:

A qualifying disclosure is made in accordance with this section if the worker -

(a) Makes the disclosure in good faith to a person prescribed by an order made by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section, and

(b) Reasonably believes -

(i) That the relevant failure falls within any description of matters in respect of which that person is so prescribed, and

(ii) That the information disclosed, and any allegation contained in it, are substantially true.

Previously, a worker wishing to make protected disclosures in the legal industry would only receive protection under the Act if they made those disclosures to their employer or to the organisation directly responsible for the alleged failings (limited to specific categories of information under Section 43B). Alternatively, they would previously have needed to have satisfied the more stringent test under Section 43G to obtain statutory protection for reporting to the SRA.

It should be noted that the Bar Standards Board ("BSB"), the regulatory body responsible for barristers, is not a prescribed person. Section 43F therefore does not apply to disclosures made to the BSB in the way it now applies to disclosures made to the SRA.

At present, protections for whistleblowers remain limited. Only a "worker" (as defined under Section 43K of the Employment Rights Act 1996) is protected under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, and only where the criteria in Sections 43C to 43H of the Employment Rights Act 1996 are met such that a disclosure constitutes a "qualifying disclosure". A worker must also demonstrate that the protected disclosure materially influenced (i.e. more than trivial) the detrimental they suffered, or - where dismissal is concerned - that the protected disclosure was the sole or principal reason for dismissal.

Until the Public Office (Accountability) Bill (the "Hillsborough Law") and the Office of the Whistleblower Bill are enacted, protections remain restricted to those in an employment relationship or similar setting as defined in Section 43K.

What additional protections do workers now have?

Where a disclosure capable of amounting to a qualifying disclosure is made to the SRA, a worker will now, in principle, be protected from detrimental treatment and unfair dismissal on the grounds of having made that disclosure. This is a day one right.

Whilst the vast majority of whistleblowing cases settle via ACAS or are otherwise withdrawn or dismissed - sometimes indicative of settlement - only around 1% succeed at a full merits hearing. Significant backlogs and pressure on the employment tribunal mean that cases are not being heard for several years after a claim is commenced. Combined with the severe career and psychiatric harm that can result from detrimental treatment or dismissal, this can make for a harrowing period, particularly where respondents conduct litigation in an oppressive or high-handed manner.

The Office of the Whistleblower Bill seeks to change this landscape by creating an independent regulator, criminalising detrimental treatment, and providing claimants with a quicker, alternative route to redress.

What is to be expected from the SRA?

The SRA's Code of Conduct prohibits individuals from preventing anyone from providing information to the SRA (paragraph 7.5) and from subjecting any personal to detrimental treatment as a consequence of doing so or attempting to do so (paragraph 7.9).

However, research (available here) from legal charity, Blind Justice UK, found that 70% of reports received by the SRA are closed without investigation. The charity also identified significant blind spots in the SRA's published and available data, making it difficult to draw meaningful conclusions from the information available.

Historically, the SRA has declined to investigate matters it categorises as "employment disputes", even where those disputes raise issues of public interest or highlight risks to clients or the wider profession.

Practical tips

• Workers: Seek advice before making a protected disclosure - whether internally or to a prescribed person - to ensure the disclosure qualifies for protection.
  
  
• Organisations: Conduct a forensic review of whistleblowing policies, processes and training. Damages for whistleblowing detriment or dismissal are uncapped, and the potential for reputational and regulatory fallout can be significant. Whistleblowing claims are on the rise, however, this may change when the cap on ordinary unfair dismissal damages is removed in January 2027.
  
  
• Non-disclosure agreements: Organisations should exercise extreme caution when using non-disclosure clauses in settlement agreements. It is not possible to prevent a worker from making a protected disclosure in any event by way of any such clause.
  
  
• Criminal conduct: Whilst any agreement would not previously have been able to prevent reporting to the authorities, the new Victims and Courts Act 2026 expressly prohibits the use of non-disclosure clauses where alleged criminal activity is involved.
  
  
• The SRA's guidance on the use of non-disclosure agreements is also well worth a read (link here) to ensure that a regulatory breach is not inadvertently committed.

How we can help

If you would like assistance with any of the issues featured in this article, or with reviewing or rewriting policies, please contact us.

The information in this article is correct at the time of writing. It is intended as general guidance and should not be treated as legal advice. Every situation turns on its own facts, and tailored advice should be sought before taking any action.

Munro Advisory LLP (OC459151) is not a regulated law firm and does not provide reserved legal services.