SRA to join the prescribed persons list: what this means for whistleblowing in the legal sector

It is anticipated that the SRA will soon join the list of bodies designated to receive whistleblowing concerns under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA).

PIDA protects workers who report certain categories of wrongdoing, provided they do so through appropriate channels, by giving them recourse against dismissal or other detriment faced as a result of speaking up. To qualify for protection a disclosure must generally be made to either an employer or a "prescribed person" listed in the legislation.

Prescribed persons are regulators or bodies deemed appropriate recipients of disclosures because of their oversight functions within particular sectors. Over time this list has expanded to include authorities such as the HSE, the FCA and the director of the SFO.

Despite its central role in regulating the legal sector the SRA has, to date, sat outside this framework. While the SRA actively encourages and receives reports of misconduct, it is not formally recognised as a prescribed person for whistleblowing purposes in the same way as its regulatory counterparts in other industries. 

This effectively limits who legal professionals can report concerns to if they are to benefit from whistleblowing protections. While disclosures can in some circumstances be made directly to the SRA in the first instance, additional conditions must be satisfied to justify doing so, such as showing a genuine risk that the firm may destroy evidence if the matter were raised internally first. 

Solicitors are subject to stringent professional obligations to act with integrity and report misconduct, yet have not benefitted from equivalent statutory security when doing so. In practice this disconnect has arguably contributed to a degree of reluctance for solicitors to report concerns, out of fear of retaliation, reputational damage or longer-term impact on their careers.

What this would mean for solicitors (private practice and in-house)

The SRA's anticipated designation is intended to address this imbalance by strengthening the sector's confidence that concerns can be raised safely. If implemented, the SRA's recognition as a prescribed person would mark a significant development in the UK's whistleblowing landscape. 

This is particularly relevant for in-house lawyers who often operate at the intersection of legal and commercial pressures. For these individuals the proximity to business decision-making can heighten the tension between duties owed to their employer, and their overarching professional and ethical obligations. Designation of the SRA should provide clearer protection for disclosures made externally, particularly in circumstances where internal escalation is difficult, complex or conflicted. This change may therefore recalibrate how in-house lawyers approach complicated ethical issues and seek external advice when balancing their professional obligations.

Law firms should be aware that this update could lead to an increase in external disclosures, particularly where internal processes are perceived as ineffective, conflicted or lacking independence. As a result internal whistleblowing frameworks will need not only to exist, but also inspire confidence that concerns will be taken seriously and investigated promptly. A firm's failure to do so may no longer lead just to internal dissatisfaction, but could escalate to regulatory involvement.