_{Lots of solicitors, from time to time.}

The Solicitors Regulation Authority should not have prevented a solicitor from practising law because of concerns about their mental health, according to a new SRA report into the matter seen by RollOnFriday.

'CF', who RollOnFriday has agreed to keep anonymous, was reported to the regulator by their law firm in 2025. 

The SRA said it paused its investigation when CF’s lawyers argued that CF could not engage with the probe for mental health reasons, which included two attempts to commit suicide and being sectioned briefly.

The SRA subsequently did complete its investigation in July 2025, deciding that no further action should be taken.

However, it imposed an immediate condition on CF’s practising certificate which stated that CF “shall not practise as a solicitor or carry out any reserved or unreserved legal activities”.

The SRA adjudicator in charge of the matter said she reached her decision after considering “Whether [CF] has the ability, at this time, due to [CF’s] current health to understand and comply with the professional and regulatory obligations incumbent on a solicitor”.

The SRA adjudicator concluded that “Because of [CF’s] health issues there is a risk to the trust the public may place in [CF], and the legal profession may be undermined should [CF] continue to practise at this time.”

CF asked the SRA to review its decision, arguing that the condition amounted to a de facto suspension in circumstances where no findings had been made against them and where a medical opinion had not been obtained.

As well as taking time off work after becoming unwell and restricting their practice, CF said they had in fact “fully co-operated with the SRA investigation”.

CF said the suggestion that they were “putting the public at risk” was “grossly offensive”, and “to suggest that [CF] cannot manage [CF’s] own health condition is erroneous and infantilising”.

But a second SRA adjudicator who reviewed the decision in December 2025 endorsed it, finding that her colleague’s ruling was not “materially flawed”.

“Restricting a solicitor’s right to practice their profession is not something that is undertaken lightly”, said the second SRA adjudicator.

“The SRA is authorised to act where there is a specific and identifiable risk, as in this case. Acting where serious concerns have been raised about a solicitor’s health, does not amount to a breach of [CF’s] rights”, she said.

The second SRA adjudicator concluded: “Balancing the demands of a legal career can be difficult for most people, however, where there is a situational element to the health concerns, it is reasonable that there may be triggers not only when revisiting those matters with the SRA, but also when working within the legal field”.

“Therefore, it is not just for the benefit of the public but also for [CF] that [CF] is medically fit for work within the legal sector.”

The second SRA adjudicator left open the possibility for the condition to be removed “once the SRA has received medical confirmation that [CF’s] health has improved”.

CF went public with the issue, stating on platforms including LinkedIn and Reddit how they were “deeply upset about the way this has been handled and the patronising, discriminatory and dismissive manner in which the SRA have communicated with me on these issues”.

“Experiencing suicidal thoughts due to extreme situational life events, when you are signed off work and have restricted your practice, should not cost you your career”, said CF.

CF’s predicament garnered support from lawyers who speculated that the SRA's stance appeared to require all solicitors experiencing mental health issues to report themselves for a potential suspension.

“It is truly astonishing that the SRA should have behaved as it did”, said one commenter.

“Half the profession would have limits on their PCs if they were to make this a hard line", said another commenter: "I’ve seen so many solicitors talk online about poor mental health and past suicide attempts”.

CF agreed to be examined by a psychiatrist in March 2025 who endorsed their mental health.

A copy of the assesement seen by RollOnFriday states, "I can confirm that [CF’s] mental health has been stable and there is no ongoing risk to [CF] or others", and concludes, "With [CF’s] current presentation, I do not see any reason why [CF] cannot continue to practise as a solicitor." 

The medical assessment triggered a review by an SRA authorisation officer, who issued her report this week. 

Also seen by ROF, it identifies flaws in the reasoning of the first two SRA adjudicators and concludes that the matter must be referred to another SRA adjudicator.

The report notes that CF made submissions that the condition breached the SRA's undertaking to the Legal Services Board that it would only impose conditions in relation to health issues if “a solicitor has a health condition”, “that condition means they cannot safely practice or engage with the SRA’s regulatory Processes”, and “the solicitor has not taken steps to manage the impact of their condition – for instance by restricting their practice or obtaining the necessary support from their firm”.

The SRA authorisation officer noted that CF had “already proactively restricted [their] own practise” and that the first SRA adjudicator “was aware of this fact when she made her decision on 12 August 2025". 

"On the face of it this does go against the LSB decision notice and our own guidance”, said the officer.

“I ask the adjudicator to consider based on the previous medical information provided and these guidelines if the original decision was materially flawed or if the condition was applied appropriately”, she concluded.

Jonathan Peddie, the SRA's Executive Director of Investigations, Enforcement and Litigation, told ROF, “While we cannot talk about the specifics of individual cases, we recognise we need to treat mental health issues with great care. We do not want to increase pressures on those suffering mental health concerns, we want to approach this sensitively."

“There will be circumstances where we need to protect the public by putting in controls to manage those who might not be able to properly discharge their responsibilities due to mental health issues, including placing conditions on their right to practice. But we would need them to co-operate with us so we understand the issues they face and can apply the right measure of regulatory oversight."

"Where they can co-operate, then it might be possible to find gentler, but still effective solutions. It may, for example, be possible for them to continue to work in their firm with the support of others to mitigate the risk of ill-health impacting their work."

"If they cannot co-operate, then we cannot allow them to continue practising as we will not be clear on whether or not they present a risk to clients, and we must prioritise the protection of the public."

"We are in dialogue with interested parties to continue developing a sympathetic approach", he added.

CF told RollOnFriday, "This admission from the SRA signals a much-needed sea-change. By conceding that imposing conditions on health grounds was a breach of its 2023 promises to the Legal Services Board and its own guidance".

"While regulation is vital, it must not become a punitive or discriminatory tool that increases stigma or deters solicitors from seeking help."

CF said, "It is deeply concerning that the SRA imposed these draconian conditions without first seeking a medical opinion, instead relying on lay speculation they have since admitted they were not qualified to make".

"By comparison, the GMC’s process for doctors involves standard expert reports and tribunal oversight, making it far more transparent. If the SRA is to retain these health-related powers, it must adopt a similarly robust system to avoid discrimination. I am speaking out to ensure the SRA's newly acquired powers are not exercised without independent oversight, and I want to thank everyone who supported me, especially those who took the time to comment and donate."

CF said "the level of support has been overwhelming".