SRA: Compliance officers suffer high stress levels
Law firm compliance officers have “poor” knowledge of the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) reporting and record-keeping requirements, according to research by the regulator.
Fewer than half of compliance officers (44%) felt the role “was acknowledged and/or valued” by law firms, while a majority (52%) felt stressed by it.
“We tested compliance officers’ knowledge of our reporting and recording requirements. The results were poor,” said the SRA.
“A fifth of the compliance officers could not explain their record keeping obligations. A further 59% could only provide a partial explanation.
“This was compounded by further findings: only half of the compliance officers have read our reporting and notification guidance; and only 19% of the compliance officers had read our enforcement strategy.
“Fundamentally, a compliance officer cannot successfully discharge their reporting and recording duties if they do not understand them or the relevant basic concepts.”
Indeed, only one person it spoke to was able to describe the difference between a ‘notification’, which must be made to the SRA, and a ‘report’, where the COLP or COFA has discretion.
The regulator visited 25 law firms and spoke to 36 individuals for its thematic review of compliance officers – checking compliance policies, logs of internal breaches and training and development records.
With the SRA consulting on banning sole owners from also being compliance officers, three-quarters of those interviewed were owners.
A large majority (84%) of COLPs were solicitors, while barristers and chartered legal executives were also interviewed. Seven out of 10 had been qualified lawyers for over 15 years.
In almost two-thirds of the firms, the COLP and COFA roles were held by different people. The “low turnover” of compliance officers was reflected in the finding that 42% had been in the role since its initial introduction in 2012.
Most compliance officers “received no acknowledgment or financial incentive for holding the roles, and attempts to backfill roles had proved difficult”. Four in 10 “felt that it had no career benefit”.
Compliance officers are under a duty to record all breaches that occur and escalate them to the SRA in line with its reporting and notification obligations.
However, only a quarter were able to “describe a defined process” for doing this.
Almost half of compliance officers (44%) said they used “their own professional experience” to determine whether a report needed to be made, and none of this group had read the SRA’s reporting and notification guidance.
They used “other strategies”, with half contacting the SRA’s professional ethics team, 17% using an external compliance company and 6% discussing it with a second member of staff.
Almost a fifth of compliance officers were unsure about reporting because they had “never had to do it”.
Nearly half of compliance officers “identified a lack of time as their primary challenge, and this was particularly true for compliance officers who were undertaking multiple roles”.
Compliance officers in the study spent an average of 26% of their time on compliance-related tasks, with a quarter saying they “struggle” to dedicate enough time alongside fee-earning work and a similar proportion that they find it hard keeping up with regulatory updates.
“We found that adding another role, such as a fee-earner or director, can lead to competing priorities, increased stress, and a greater risk of errors or oversight.
“For some firms this is not a choice, but the risks involved should still be acknowledged and considered.”
The SRA said high stress levels were “driven by the high level of personal responsibility” felt by compliance officers. Lack of time, support and internal resourcing added to the stress.
It “identified causes for concern, and specific risks” that could reduce the effectiveness of COLP and COFA roles.
These included that “compliance roles, and the succession plan for those roles, is not always considered or prioritised”, in some cases leaving single individuals “over-relied on despite reporting that they have a lack of sufficient time and support”.
A further risk was that “ongoing competence of compliance role holders is not always given sufficient priority”.
Other risks were that some compliance officers lacked “full understanding of their regulatory obligations”, had “limited awareness of relevant SRA resources” and their roles were “often undervalued”.
The SRA added that “strengthening the checks and balances provided by compliance officers” was an important part of its review of consumer protection and meeting the directions of the Legal Services Board imposed in May 2025, following the Axiom Ince debacle.
The SRA was committed to developing a “support package for compliance officers and firms” as part of the current consultation and in the longer term “a more fundamental review” of the compliance officer regime.
Leave a Comment