The SRA has started the formal process to appoint a new Board Chair, with Anna Bradley due to stand down after eight years on the Board and a new Chair expected to be in post from 1 January 2027.
The official announcement is polite, as these things usually are. It points to a long list of changes during Bradley’s tenure: the move to the SQE, a more principles-based and risk-focused regulatory model, governance changes, innovation work and the appointment of Sarah Rapson as chief executive.
It also acknowledges the obvious: the SRA has not kept pace with the market, fundamental mistakes have been made, and the consequences have been serious for consumers and for the profession.
That apology is welcome, but it is unlikely to be enough on its own. The mood in the profession is unforgiving. In the wake of Axiom Ince, SSB, PM Law and others, and facing a rising cost of regulation, the Compensation Fund, and client account reform, many solicitors have a sense that compliant firms are being asked to pay for failures they did not create.
Some criticism is inevitably sharp-edged. But underneath the frustration is a legitimate governance question: what should the Chair of the SRA actually be for? Is the role primarily about organisational oversight, consumer protection, public confidence, market strategy, accountability to the LSB, or maintaining a working relationship with the profession being regulated? The answer is probably all of those things, which is exactly why the appointment is crucial at a time when confidence in the SRA is at an all time low.
The new Chair will inherit a regulator trying to reset itself while also asking for more money, strengthening supervision, reviewing client money protections and responding to oversight from the LSB. Oh and let’s not forget the FCA taking over AML supervision. So this is not a ceremonial appointment. The next Chair will need to show that the SRA can spot risk earlier, act faster, listen better, be more transparent and more contrite when things go wrong.
The SRA does not need to be captured by the profession, and consumer protection must remain central. But a regulator that loses the confidence of well-run firms has a serious problem. Good regulation requires challenge, but it also requires trust, curiosity and a working understanding of how firms actually operate. That is especially true when the regulated firms are asked to police themselves in a principles-based manner.
The next Chair does not need to arrive with easy answers. In fact, easy answers are probably part of the problem. But they will need humility, operational grip and enough independence of mind to ask whether the regulatory model is genuinely working for clients, the public and the profession.
