Denning Law School

Advocacy and Professional Ethics

Part A: Client Interviewing, Observation and Critique

Introduction

This interview, viewed from the perspective of the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), raises
serious and multifaceted regulatory concerns. The discussion between Melissa Brown and Sara
Thompson and their client, Natalie, involves admissions of habitual drug use with clients,
misappropriation of client funds from a limited liability firm, and blackmail relating to the
attempted release of a client charged with double murder. These disclosures engage core
obligations under the SRA Principles1 and the Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs2,
as well as the Code of Conduct for Firms3. The central regulatory question is not merely whether
misconduct has occurred, but whether Melissa and Sara’s response adequately safeguards the
administration of justice, maintains public confidence, and reflects the independence and integrity
required of solicitors. While aspects of their conduct demonstrate professionalism and concern for
client welfare, significant regulatory weaknesses is observable.

Upholding the Administration of Justice and the Duty to the Court

Principle 1 and 34 requires solicitors to act in a way that upholds the constitutional principle of the
rule of law and the proper administration of justice. This duty is reinforced by paragraph 3.1 of the
Code for Solicitors5, which require solicitors to uphold the administration of justice and not
mislead the court. Additionally, Principle 3 further requires maintenance of independence, which
is integral to safeguarding judicial integrity.

1
Solicitors Regulation Authority, SRA Principles (in force 25 November 2019)
2
Solicitors Regulation Authority, Code of Conduct for Solicitors, Registered European Lawyers and Registered
Foreign Lawyers (in force 25 November 2019)
3
Solicitors Regulation Authority, Code of Conduct for Firms (in force 25 November 2019)
4
Solicitors Regulation Authority, SRA Principles Principle 1 and 3.
5
Solicitors Regulation Authority, Code of Conduct for Solicitors, Registered European Lawyers and Registered
Foreign Lawyers para 3.1

1|Page
 Denning Law School

Natalie’s admission that she is being blackmailed into securing the release of a client charged with
double murder creates a direct risk of interference with criminal proceedings. The potential for
improper influence over the conduct of a trial engages the solicitor’s overriding duty to the court.
While Melissa and Sara acknowledge the seriousness of the matter, their response remains cautious
and primarily client-focused. They do not clearly articulate that any attempt to manipulate
proceedings would be incompatible with their professional obligations. Nor do they provide
structured guidance that unequivocally distances the firm from any conduct capable of
undermining the integrity of the trial.

From a regulatory perspective, this creates a material risk. The duty to the court is not passive. As
officers of the court, solicitors must act proactively where justice may be compromised. The
absence of a firm and explicit boundary-setting response suggests insufficient emphasis on
paragraph 3.1. While no active misconduct is demonstrated, the regulatory handling falls short of
the clarity expected where the administration of justice is threatened.

Public Trust and Confidence in the Profession

Principle 26 requires solicitors to act in a manner that upholds public trust and confidence in the
profession. The Court of Appeal in Bolton v Law Society7 emphasized that the reputation of the
profession is more important than the fortunes of any individual solicitor. This principle is
particularly engaged where admissions of criminal conduct and financial dishonesty arise.

Natalie admits to misappropriating client funds and engaging in illegal drug use with clients. Such
conduct strikes at the heart of public confidence in legal services. The regulatory concern is not
limited to Natalie’s conduct but extends to how Melissa and Sara respond. Their tone, while
empathetic, risks appearing overly reassuring in the face of grave admissions. There is limited
discussion of mandatory reporting obligations, regulatory consequences, or the seriousness of
misuse of client money. From an SRA perspective, such understatement risks conveying that
professional misconduct can be treated informally within the profession.

6
Solicitors Regulation Authority, SRA Principles Principle 2.
7
Bolton v Law Society [1994] 1 WLR 512

2|Page
 Denning Law School

Paragraph 1.2 of the Code for Solicitors8 prohibits abuse of position. Misappropriation of client
funds is a paradigmatic breach of trust. Although Melissa and Sara are not implicated in the
misconduct itself, their failure to clearly outline the gravity of the breach and the potential need
for regulatory disclosure risks undermining public confidence.

Confidentiality and the Limits of Legal Professional Privilege

Paragraph 6.39 imposes a duty of confidentiality, but paragraph 6.410 clarifies that disclosure may
be required or permitted by law. The authorities of R v Cox and Railton11, and Francis and
Francis v Central Criminal Court12, establish that communications in furtherance of criminal
conduct fall outside legal professional privilege.

Melissa and Sara provide broad assurances of confidentiality at the outset of the meeting.
However, these assurances are not sufficiently qualified. Given Natalie’s admissions of ongoing
criminal conduct and blackmail linked to a murder trial, the failure to explain that privilege does
not protect communications made in furtherance of wrongdoing is a significant regulatory concern.
The issue is not that confidentiality was breached, but that its limits were not accurately articulated.

From an SRA standpoint, this mischaracterization risks misleading the client about the scope of
protection available. Solicitors must ensure clients understand that privilege does not shield
criminality. The absence of such clarification is a substantive regulatory weakness.

Independence and Improper Influence

Principle 313 requires solicitors to maintain independence. In the present scenario, Natalie is
subject to coercive pressure through blackmail. This directly compromises her professional
independence and potentially that of any solicitor advising her.

8
Solicitors Regulation Authority, Code of Conduct for Solicitors, Registered European Lawyers and Registered
Foreign Lawyers para 1.2.
9
Solicitors Regulation Authority, Code of Conduct for Solicitors, Registered European Lawyers and Registered
Foreign Lawyers para 6.3.
10
Solicitors Regulation Authority, Code of Conduct for Solicitors, Registered European Lawyers and Registered
Foreign Lawyers para 6.4.
11
R v Cox and Railton (1884) 14 QBD 153
12
R. v Central Criminal Court ex parte Francis & Francis (A Firm) [1989] A.C. 346
13
Solicitors Regulation Authority, SRA Principles, Principle 3

3|Page
 Denning Law School

Melissa and Sara recognize the personal danger posed to Natalie and advise her to contact the
police, which demonstrates concern for her welfare. However, they do not sufficiently address the
regulatory implications of her compromised independence. There is limited analysis of whether
she can continue acting in the murder case without breaching professional obligations. Nor is there
structured advice regarding withdrawal from representation where independence is impaired.

Independence is not merely personal autonomy; it is a regulatory safeguard for justice. Where a
solicitor’s judgment is distorted by coercion, continuation in the matter may itself be improper.
The absence of decisive guidance in this respect represents a regulatory vulnerability.

Competence, Governance and Firm-Level Responsibilities

Paragraph 4.3 of the Code for Firms14 requires effective supervision and competence systems. The
interview reveals a lack of structured legal analysis. Melissa and Sara provide reassurance but do
not clearly set out the legal and regulatory consequences of misappropriating client funds, nor do
they outline specific remedial steps.

At firm level, paragraph 4.215 requires effective governance and ethical culture. The fact that
misappropriation of funds and client-related misconduct occurred within a limited liability firm
raises systemic concerns. There is no indication that firm controls, compliance officers, or
reporting mechanisms are being engaged. From a regulatory perspective, this omission raises
questions about whether adequate systems are in place to detect and address serious misconduct.

The regulatory concern therefore extends beyond individual advice to potential deficiencies in
governance and risk management.

Communication and Client Understanding

Paragraph 8.616 requires solicitors to ensure clients receive information in a way they can
understand. Over-simplified assurances, particularly regarding confidentiality and regulatory
exposure, risk preventing informed decision-making. In the present case, while the communication

14
Solicitors Regulation Authority, Code of Conduct for Firms para 4.3.
15
Solicitors Regulation Authority, Code of Conduct for Firms para 4.2.
16
Solicitors Regulation Authority, Code of Conduct for Solicitors, Registered European Lawyers and Registered
Foreign Lawyers para 8.6.

4|Page
 Denning Law School

style adopted is calm and accessible, clarity must not be sacrificed for reassurance. In
circumstances of admitted criminality and blackmail, precision and decisiveness are essential.

Overall Regulatory Assessment

This interview discloses extremely serious underlying misconduct by the client and significant
risks to the administration of justice. Melissa and Sara demonstrate professionalism, empathy, and
concern for Natalie’s safety. They do not endorse wrongdoing and advise contacting the police in
relation to blackmail, which is appropriate.

However, from an SRA perspective, their response lacks the firmness, structural clarity, and
explicit articulation of professional duties required in such circumstances. The limits of
confidentiality are inadequately explained; the overriding duty to the court is insufficiently
emphasized; the implications of compromised independence are not fully addressed; and firm-
level governance concerns remain unexplored.

While the interview does not demonstrate clear regulatory breach by Melissa and Sara, it reveals
substantial regulatory risk and sub-optimal ethical handling. In matters involving criminal
admissions, client fund misappropriation, and potential interference with murder proceedings, the
SRA would expect unequivocal boundary-setting, explicit reference to overriding duties, and
decisive governance action. The absence of such measures undermines confidence that the
administration of justice is being robustly protected.

[Part A Word Limit – 1241 words]

Part B: Essay

In preparing Part A, I adopted a structured and methodical research strategy grounded in the SRA
Standards and Regulations. Given that the task required analysis from the perspective of an SRA
regulator, my first step was to revisit the regulatory framework to ensure accuracy before engaging
in evaluative commentary. Rather than approaching the interview descriptively, I constructed a
structured and layered roadmap, identifying each factual issue arising in the four-part video and
mapping it against potentially engaged Principles and Code provisions. This allowed me to
distinguish between mere ethical concerns and actual regulatory breaches.

5|Page
 Denning Law School

My research began with the primary sources: the SRA Principles 17, the Code of Conduct for
Solicitors18, and the Code of Conduct for Firms19. I accessed these via the SRA’s official website20
to ensure I was relying on the operative framework. Thereafter, I utilized Westlaw UK 21 and
Bailii22 to examine relevant disciplinary case law concerning integrity, misuse of client money,
independence, and public trust. The cases were particularly instructive in understanding the
regulatory rationale underpinning sanctions. This wider reading helped me frame my analysis not
simply in terms of rule breaking, but in light of the protective and public confidence objectives of
the SRA’s regime.

The drafting process involved three deliberate stages. First, I outlined the answer according to
thematic regulatory breaches rather than following the chronological sequence of the interview.
This ensured analytical clarity. Second, I integrated authority directly within evaluative paragraphs
rather than isolating it in separate discussion. Third, I refined the tone to reflect a regulatory voice
which is measured, objective, and principled, rather than moralistic or emotive.

The most challenging aspect of the answer was crafting the introduction. A critical reflection of
this nature required balancing summary with regulatory framing. It was important to avoid merely
recounting the interview while still situating the analysis within the SRA’s statutory mandate. I
found it difficult initially to determine how much factual background was necessary before
commencing evaluative commentary. Ultimately, I resolved this by limiting the introduction to a
concise regulatory context, thereby preserving word count for substantive analysis.

The analytical section also posed difficulty, particularly in distinguishing between overlapping
regulations, most notably integrity (Principle 5) and public trust (Principle 2). Wider reading
assisted in clarifying that integrity concerns the internal moral compass of the solicitor, whereas
public trust addresses external perception. Recognizing this distinction strengthened the coherence
of my argument.

17
Solicitors Regulation Authority, SRA Principles (in force 25 November 2019)
18
Solicitors Regulation Authority, Code of Conduct for Solicitors, Registered European Lawyers and Registered
Foreign Lawyers (in force 25 November 2019)
19
Solicitors Regulation Authority, Code of Conduct for Firms (in force 25 November 2019)
20
Solicitors Regulation Authority [Link] accessed 21 February 2026
21
Westlaw UK [Link] accessed 21 February 2026
22
British and Irish Legal Information Institute (BAILII) [Link] accessed 21 February 2026

6|Page
 Denning Law School

Finally, observing the failures demonstrated in the interview has practical implications for my
future professional conduct. The importance of maintaining independence under pressure,
exercising proper financial controls, and ensuring transparency within a firm structure are lessons
directly transferable to practice. Moreover, the structured approach adopted in this assignment,
including fact identification, regulatory mapping, and principled evaluation, reflects a
methodology I would apply in future compliance assessments or ethical dilemmas. The exercise
has reinforced that professional responsibility is not reactive but anticipatory and effective
regulation depends upon constant vigilance and an unwavering commitment to integrity.

[Part B Word Limit – 492 words]

7|Page
 Denning Law School

Bibliography

Regulatory Framework:
Solicitors Regulation Authority, Code of Conduct for Firms (25 November 2019)
Solicitors Regulation Authority, Code of Conduct for Solicitors, Registered European Lawyers
and Registered Foreign Lawyers (25 November 2019)
Solicitors Regulation Authority, SRA Principles (25 November 2019)
Cases:
Bolton v Law Society [1994] 1 WLR 512
R v Cox and Railton (1884) 14 QBD 153

R. v Central Criminal Court ex parte Francis & Francis (A Firm) [1989] A.C. 346

Re McE (Northern Ireland) [2009] UKHL 15

Online Database and Websites:

British and Irish Legal Information Institute (BAILII) [Link] accessed 21 February
2026

Solicitors Regulation Authority [Link] accessed 21 February 2026

Westlaw UK [Link] accessed 21 February 2026

8|Page