Supervision—SRA 2011 regime and SRA 2019 regime compared
Supervision—SRA 2011 regime and SRA 2019 regime compared

The following Practice Compliance guidance note provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:

  • Supervision—SRA 2011 regime and SRA 2019 regime compared
  • Management control
  • Service and competence
  • Education and training
  • Supervision of registered foreign lawyers (RFLs)

This Practice Note contrasts the requirements in the SRA’s 2011 and 2019 regimes as well as wider requirements in relation to supervision. There is a separate Practice Note providing more detailed guidance on the SRA’s 2019 supervision requirements—see Practice Note: Supervision 2019—law firms.

Regulatory requirements in relation to supervision are contained in various places, including the 2019 Codes, the Authorisation of Firms Rules 2019, the SRA Education, Training and Assessment Provider Regulations 2019, SRA Transparency Rules 2018 and Authorisation of Individuals Regulations 2019.

The requirements in the 2019 Codes represent the bare bones of those in the 2011 Code.

You will see in the tables below, however, that the pared-down requirements in the 2019 Codes do not represent a relaxation of the SRA’s expectations on supervision. Generally, the omitted items in the Codes can be mapped across to one or more obligation in the 2019 Principles, or requirements elsewhere in the SRA or regulatory regime.

Management control

2011 regime 2019 regime
You must have a clear and effective governance structure and reporting lines.
(SRA Code of Conduct 2011, O(7.1))
This was removed from the SRA Codes as it was too vague and covered by more tailored new standards in the Code for Firms.
Note, however, that to grant authorisation to a firm, the SRA must be satisfied that, if authorisation is granted:
—the managers, interest holders or management and governance arrangements are suitable to operate or control a business providing regulated legal services, and
—the firm will comply with the SRA’s