SRA Principles & Code of Conduct

LSV.01 — SRA Principles & Code of Conduct

The conduct regime sits in the SRA Standards and Regulations (STaRs), in force since 25 November 2019. Two layers matter for SQE1.

The 7 Principles

You must act:

1. in a way that upholds the constitutional principle of the rule of law, and the proper administration of justice;
2. in a way that upholds public trust and confidence in the solicitors' profession;
3. with independence;
4. with honesty;
5. with integrity;
6. in a way that encourages equality, diversity and inclusion;
7. in the best interests of each client.

The Principles are mandatory and of equal importance. Where two or more conflict, those that safeguard the wider public interest — the rule of law, public confidence in the profession, and the proper administration of justice — take precedence over an individual client's interests (so the duty to the court / rule of law beats Principle 7).

Two Codes

• Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs — applies to individuals.
• Code of Conduct for Firms — applies to authorised bodies (managers/compliance officers, COLP and COFA).

Key duties / common traps

• Honesty vs integrity are distinct. Integrity is the broader standard (Wingate v SRA [2018] EWCA Civ 366): a solicitor can breach integrity without being dishonest. Dishonesty uses the Ivey v Genting [2017] UKSC 67 test — first ascertain the actual (subjective) state of the person's knowledge or belief as to the facts, then judge whether the conduct was dishonest by the objective standards of ordinary decent people (the Ghosh second limb — whether the defendant realised it was dishonest — is gone).
• Duty to the court overrides duty to client: never mislead the court, even by omission; don't call evidence you know to be false. You cannot disclose privileged client confidences to correct the record — you cease to act.
• Confidentiality (6.3) vs disclosure (6.4). Confidentiality is paramount and survives the retainer/death. The duty to disclose material information yields to confidentiality — confidentiality wins. No more Chinese-wall "consent" exception by inference: act for two clients with a conflict on the same/related matter only with informed consent in narrow gateways (substantially common interest / competing for the same objective), and never where confidential info of one is material to another without effective safeguards.
• Own-interest conflict (6.2) is an absolute bar — informed consent cannot cure it.
• No referral fees in personal injury (LASPO 2012 s.56); referral arrangements must be disclosed and not compromise independence.
• Report serious breaches promptly to the SRA (7.7–7.8).

Trap: Principles bind everyone regulated; the Codes differ by individual vs firm.