The Ministry of Justice regularly engages with the SRA on the effective operation of the legal services regulatory framework. This has included engagement with the SRA regarding the training and qualification requirements for solicitors and how these requirements are responding to changes in the legal profession.

The Ministry of Justice has not made a specific assessment of the adequacy of support available for trainee solicitors. It is for the SRA, as the relevant independent legal services regulator, to determine its approach to these matters, with oversight from the LSB. The SRA publishes annual reports on the operation of the Solicitors Qualifying Exam, which provide assurance on the robustness of the assessment and set out improvements in delivery and candidate support. These are available here: https://www.sra.org.uk/sra/research-publications/topic/education-training/.

The Ministry of Justice regularly engages with the SRA on the effective operation of the legal services regulatory framework. This has included engagement with the SRA regarding the training and qualification requirements for solicitors and how these requirements are responding to changes in the legal profession.

The Ministry of Justice has not made a specific assessment of the adequacy of support available for trainee solicitors. It is for the SRA, as the relevant independent legal services regulator, to determine its approach to these matters, with oversight from the LSB. The SRA publishes annual reports on the operation of the Solicitors Qualifying Exam, which provide assurance on the robustness of the assessment and set out improvements in delivery and candidate support. These are available here: https://www.sra.org.uk/sra/research-publications/topic/education-training/.

The Ministry of Justice regularly engages with the SRA on the effective operation of the legal services regulatory framework. This has included engagement with the SRA regarding the training and qualification requirements for solicitors and how these requirements are responding to changes in the legal profession.

The Ministry of Justice has not made a specific assessment of the adequacy of support available for trainee solicitors. It is for the SRA, as the relevant independent legal services regulator, to determine its approach to these matters, with oversight from the LSB. The SRA publishes annual reports on the operation of the Solicitors Qualifying Exam, which provide assurance on the robustness of the assessment and set out improvements in delivery and candidate support. These are available here: https://www.sra.org.uk/sra/research-publications/topic/education-training/.

The legal profession in England and Wales, together with its regulators, operates independently of Government. The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) is responsible for regulating the professional conduct of solicitors and most law firms in England and Wales, with oversight from the Legal Services Board.

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) regularly engages with the SRA on the operation of the legal services regulatory framework. I regularly meet the SRA and have challenged them to improve their performance in the context of law firm collapses, including Axiom Ince and SSB Law, and in the context of investigating Andrew Milne. In those discussions, I have underscored the importance of learning lessons, addressing risks to consumers, and ensuring public confidence in legal services regulation is protected.

The legal profession in England and Wales, together with its regulators, operates independently of Government. The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) is responsible for regulating the professional conduct of solicitors and most law firms in England and Wales, with oversight from the Legal Services Board (LSB).

I meet regularly with the leadership of the LSB and SRA to hold them to account and discuss key areas of regulatory risk. Ministry of Justice (MoJ) officials regularly engage with the LSB and the SRA on the operation of the legal services regulatory framework, including matters relating to the SRA’s regulatory performance and public confidence in the regulation of solicitors and law firms. For example, there has been recent discussions relating to the failure of PM Law Limited. In those discussions, the MoJ has underscored the importance of learning lessons, addressing risks to consumers, and ensuring public confidence in legal services regulation is protected. While the MoJ has not made a separate formal assessment of the adequacy of the current regulatory structure for the professional conduct of solicitors and law firms, it keeps the effectiveness of the regulatory framework under review.

The legal profession in England and Wales, together with its regulators, operates independently of Government. The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) is responsible for regulating the professional conduct of solicitors and most law firms in England and Wales, with oversight from the Legal Services Board (LSB).

I meet regularly with the leadership of the LSB and SRA to hold them to account and discuss key areas of regulatory risk. Ministry of Justice (MoJ) officials regularly engage with the LSB and the SRA on the operation of the legal services regulatory framework, including matters relating to the SRA’s regulatory performance and public confidence in the regulation of solicitors and law firms. For example, there has been recent discussions relating to the failure of PM Law Limited. In those discussions, the MoJ has underscored the importance of learning lessons, addressing risks to consumers, and ensuring public confidence in legal services regulation is protected. While the MoJ has not made a separate formal assessment of the adequacy of the current regulatory structure for the professional conduct of solicitors and law firms, it keeps the effectiveness of the regulatory framework under review.

The government is cracking down on bad tax advisers and is creating a fairer tax advice system to help businesses and individuals access reliable tax advice.

As part of that, tax adviser registration establishes a baseline standard for all tax advisers who interact with HMRC, and ensures that HMRC knows that firms who interact with them on behalf of taxpayers meet this standard.

Under a passporting approach, firms would still need to provide HMRC with core information about their business and relevant individuals so that HMRC knows who is interacting with it and can manage access appropriately. HMRC would in any case need to undertake its own checks using HMRC systems, which are designed to make this process straightforward and minimise additional burden.

A new, streamlined tax adviser registration service was a top ask from HMRC’s stakeholders, and the government has invested £36m to make the registration process quick and easy to complete. HMRC will automatically perform checks in the background, and those with an existing agent services account (ASA) do not need to register again.

The government has consulted extensively with stakeholders about the requirement for tax advisers, who interact with HMRC on behalf of their clients, to register with HMRC.

This includes the 2024 consultation ‘Raising standards in the tax advice market: strengthening the regulatory framework and improving registration’ and a technical consultation on draft legislation published in summer 2025.

HMRC published a tax information and impact note on GOV.UK. The note details how the measure is expected to affect businesses that provide professional tax services and interact with HMRC on behalf of their clients.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/mandatory-tax-adviser-registration-with-hmrc/tax-advisers-to-register-with-hmrc-and-meet-minimum-standards

Under Civil Procedure Rules Part 54, judicial review claims must be filed promptly and no later than three months after the grounds for the claim first arose, subject to shorter statutory time limits in particular areas such as planning cases.

Claimants can apply to the Court for an extension of time when filing their claim form if they are unable to meet the three-month deadline, for example if they are having difficulties securing legal representation in that time. In determining whether to grant an extension of time, the Court will consider all the circumstances, including whether an adequate explanation has been given for the delay and whether an extension will cause substantial hardship or prejudice to other parties or be detrimental to good administration. Further information can be found in the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide.

It is the Government’s view that the three-month time limit, with the possibility of extension at the Court’s discretion, provides the right balance between ensuring individuals have adequate opportunity to challenge the lawfulness of public decisions and providing legal certainty for those public decisions.

The scope of legal aid is set out under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO).  Legal aid is available for legal services provided in relation to judicial review of an enactment, decision, act or omission subject to the application of an assessment of the merits of the case and an assessment of financial eligibility. Not all cases will qualify for legal aid.

Legal aid services for judicial reviews can be undertaken by providers holding a Public Law contract or a contract in the relevant underlying area of law e.g. housing or immigration. This means that the available supply of legal aid solicitors able to assist with a judicial review is not limited to those holding a Public Law contract.

Individuals can use the ‘Find a legal aid adviser’ search tool on GOV.UK to locate legal aid solicitors nearby using the following link: Find a Legal Aid Adviser or Family Mediator.

The Government Legal Department’s (GLD) Legal Trainee Scheme is a two‑year programme. Accordingly, the year of completion reflects cohorts who began their training contracts two years earlier.

The number of trainee solicitors who undertook a training contract with the GLD and left upon completion of the two‑year scheme in each of the past five years is as follows:

• Out of the 37 trainee solicitors that completed the scheme, 2 trainee solicitors left upon completion in 2021.
• Out of the 36 trainee solicitors that completed the scheme, 3 trainee solicitors left upon completion in 2022.
• Out of the 37 trainee solicitors that completed the scheme, 2 trainee solicitors left upon completion in 2023.
• Out of the 33 trainee solicitors that completed the scheme, 2 trainee solicitors left upon completion in 2024.
• Out of the 36 trainee solicitors that completed the scheme, 1 trainee solicitor left upon completion in 2025.

The legal profession in England and Wales, together with its regulators, operates independently of government. The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) is the frontline regulator responsible for regulating the professional conduct of solicitors and most law firms in England and Wales. The Legal Services Board (LSB) oversees the performance of all frontline regulators, including the SRA, to ensure they operate effectively and in the public interest, including through annual performance assessments, targeted reviews and ongoing engagement with regulators on their statutory duties.

Section 44B of the Solicitors Act 1974 provides the SRA with the power to require solicitors and law firms to produce information and documents where the SRA is satisfied that it is necessary to do so (amongst other grounds) for the purpose of investigating whether there has been professional misconduct by a solicitor or a breach of its rules by a recognised body. It has a similar power under section 93 of the Legal Services Act 2007 in relation to licensed bodies. The SRA has published guidance on its approach to evidence gathering, which states that the SRA may request material where privilege is asserted, subject to safeguards and use for regulatory purposes only. This guidance is available at: SRA | How we gather evidence in our regulatory and disciplinary investigations | Solicitors Regulation Authority.

I met recently with the new Chief Executive of the SRA to raise a series of performance issues with her. Whilst this Government has not undertaken its own specific assessment of the impact of the SRA’s ability to seek material over which privilege is claimed on its effectiveness as a regulator, I will discuss this with the SRA. I am aware of the ongoing proceedings concerning the scope of its statutory powers in relation to legally privileged material, and officials have discussed the matter with the SRA as part of their routine regulatory engagement.

It is not possible to identify where prosecutions of fraud are specifically related to paid ad spoofing in the no win no fee sector, as this would require manual checks at a cost disproportionate to the public interest.

In the 12 months ending June 2025, the CPS prosecuted 7,446 defendants, where Fraud and Forgery was the principal offence. In the same period, the CPS charged 77.3% of all Fraud and Forgery category cases that were referred to it by law enforcement and maintained a consistent conviction rate of 86.5%.