SDT Sanctions Explained: From Reprimand to Striking Off
When the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal finds a case proved, the sanction it imposes can range from a formal warning to permanent removal from the profession, and each carries different practical consequences.
Automated report. This article was drafted with AI assistance from the sources listed below, without a human writing step. Law Week labels every article produced this way. A person is answerable for it: if something here is wrong, write to editor@lawweek.co.uk and we will correct it on the page and say what changed.
Why sanctions vary so widely
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) is an independent body that decides cases referred to it, usually by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), about alleged misconduct by solicitors, other regulated individuals, or firms. Once the tribunal has heard the evidence and decided that an allegation is proved, it moves to a separate stage: deciding what sanction to impose. This is not automatic. The same type of misconduct can attract very different outcomes depending on factors such as whether it was deliberate or careless, whether the solicitor caused harm, whether they showed insight and remorse, and whether they have a previous disciplinary history.
The tribunal’s published guidance sets out the principles it applies, including the need to protect the public and maintain public confidence in the profession, rather than simply to punish the individual. That distinction matters. A sanction can look severe even where no client lost money, because the tribunal is focused on trust in the profession as a whole, not just on the specific financial harm caused.
The main sanctions available
At the lower end, the tribunal can impose a reprimand or a fine. A reprimand is a formal record that misconduct occurred, without further restriction on practice. A fine adds a financial penalty and, again, does not itself stop someone practising, though the SRA may separately consider whether other regulatory action is needed.
More serious cases can lead to restrictions being placed on a solicitor’s practising certificate. This might include conditions such as not being permitted to hold a role involving client money, not acting as a sole practitioner, or needing to work under supervision. These conditions are designed to manage a specific risk that the tribunal has identified, rather than to end a career outright.
At the most serious end, the tribunal can suspend a solicitor from practice for a defined period, or strike them off the roll entirely. Striking off is reserved for the most serious findings, commonly involving dishonesty, and reflects the tribunal’s long-standing position that dishonesty is very difficult to reconcile with continued practice as a solicitor. Firms themselves can also face sanctions, including the withdrawal of authorisation to operate as a recognised body.
Costs orders sit alongside the sanction
Separately from the sanction itself, the tribunal usually decides who pays the costs of the proceedings. Because SDT cases involve investigation, evidence gathering and often several days of hearing, costs orders can be substantial, frequently running well beyond the value of any fine imposed. A solicitor who is found to have committed misconduct will typically be ordered to pay the regulator’s costs, and this financial consequence can be as significant in practice as the sanction itself, particularly for a sole practitioner or someone no longer earning from practice.
What happens after the decision
Once a sanction is decided, the outcome is published. The SDT maintains a public register of its decisions, and the SRA also publishes regulatory and enforcement outcomes. This means a finding of misconduct, and the reasons behind it, becomes part of the public record indefinitely, which is one reason solicitors take these proceedings extremely seriously even when the direct sanction seems modest.
A solicitor who is struck off or suspended cannot simply return to practice when the period ends without further steps. Restoration to the roll, or the grant of a new practising certificate after suspension, generally requires an application and the SRA or tribunal being satisfied that it is safe to allow the person back into practice. This can involve demonstrating insight into what went wrong and evidence of rehabilitation, and there is no guarantee of success.
The right of appeal
Either side can, in defined circumstances, challenge the tribunal’s decision. A solicitor who believes a sanction was disproportionate, or the SRA where it considers a sanction too lenient, can appeal to the High Court. Appeals of this kind focus on whether the tribunal made an error of law or reached a decision that was clearly wrong, rather than offering a fresh rehearing of the facts, so they succeed in a minority of cases.
Why this matters beyond the individual case
SDT decisions do more than resolve one solicitor’s position. Published findings and their reasoning are used by other solicitors, compliance officers and firms to understand where regulatory lines are drawn, particularly around issues such as honesty, client money handling and conflicts of interest. Anyone wanting to check a specific outcome, understand current sanction guidance, or see whether a named individual has a disciplinary history should go directly to the tribunal’s own published decisions and guidance, since these are updated and are the authoritative source.
Where to check current details
Because tribunal guidance, procedural rules and published decisions are updated periodically, readers should always check the primary sources rather than rely on a fixed figure or rule stated elsewhere.