The SRA Principles - Acting with integrity

Learning Outcomes

This article explains the obligation to act with integrity under the SRA Principles 2019 and its application to SQE2 scenarios, including:

• Defining integrity as a broader professional standard than honesty, and articulating the legal tests for each
• Recognising common integrity risk areas in practice, including undertakings, safeguarding client money, conflicts of interest, and misleading by omission
• Identifying indicators of wilful or reckless disregard of professional standards (objective assessment) even where dishonesty is absent
• Applying the integrity principle to realistic SQE2 fact patterns, explaining analysis and outcomes
• Setting out appropriate remedial and escalation steps where integrity issues arise, such as pausing matters, clarifying authority, correcting misleading impressions, and consulting a supervisor or the COLP/COFA
• Understanding the interaction with related Principles (public trust, best interests, compliance and independence) and when withdrawal is required to avoid misleading or conflicted conduct
• Distinguishing when private conduct may engage regulatory scrutiny because it risks undermining public trust in the profession

SQE2 Syllabus

For SQE2, you are required to understand the nature and requirement of acting with integrity as imposed by the SRA Principles, to identify breaches of integrity in scenario-based situations, and to distinguish integrity from related concepts such as honesty, with a focus on the following syllabus points:

• how the SRA defines integrity for solicitors and regulated firms
• practical examples of conduct that may lack integrity, especially where not necessarily dishonest
• the overlap and distinction between honesty and integrity
• appropriate advice to a client or supervisor where potential breaches of integrity in practice are identified
• the significance of undertakings (Code of Conduct, Para 1.3), safeguarding client money (Code, Para 4), and conflicts of interest (Code, Para 6.1–6.2)
• the SRA Enforcement Strategy approach to seriousness, particularly wilful or reckless disregard of standards

Test Your Knowledge

Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, remember to look more closely at that area during your revision.

1. Which principle in the SRA Principles 2019 relates to acting with integrity?
   1. Principle 1
   2. Principle 4
   3. Principle 5
   4. Principle 7

2. True or False: Acting without integrity always means acting dishonestly.

3. Which of the following is an example of a lack of integrity, but not necessarily dishonesty?
   1. Fabricating documents
   2. Carelessly giving an undertaking you cannot perform
   3. Stealing client money
   4. Lying to a client about the status of their matter

4. In the context of the SRA Principles, why is it important to distinguish between integrity and honesty when analysing a scenario in your SQE2 assessment?

Introduction

Integrity is a headline obligation imposed on all solicitors and SRA-regulated entities in England and Wales. For the SQE2 assessments, recognising what behaviour meets—or falls short of—this standard is essential. The SRA requires solicitors to act with integrity in their work, as well as in their private lives where this affects public trust in the profession. Understanding this standard, how it is distinguished from honesty, and how to apply it in practice is frequently assessed.

Key Term: integrity
Integrity in the context of SRA regulation means a broader quality than just honesty: it denotes adherence to professional, legal and ethical standards, requiring solicitors to be open, fair, ethical and to uphold the spirit, not just the letter, of the rules. In professional dealings, solicitors are expected to be especially scrupulous about accuracy and not to mislead by act or omission. The duty extends to what solicitors may do or omit in private where this affects public trust.

Key Term: honesty
Honesty is a narrower concept than integrity. It means being truthful, not lying or deceiving. The test for dishonesty requires first determining the solicitor’s knowledge or belief as to the facts, and then judging their conduct against the objective standards of ordinary decent people.

The requirement to act with integrity

The duty to act with integrity is found in Principle 5 of the SRA Principles 2019. This applies to all regulated solicitors and law firms. Unlike the narrower concept of honesty (which prohibits deliberate lying or deception), integrity is breached by conduct falling short of honesty, including behaviour showing disregard for professional standards or the interests of others. The obligation applies pervasively across practice areas, to firms and individuals, and to conduct outside practice that risks undermining public trust.

Common contexts include:

• client account handling and safeguarding client money
• giving and performing undertakings
• managing conflicts of interest and information barriers
• dealing fairly with unrepresented parties and vulnerable clients
• ensuring communications (including on social media) remain professional and non-offensive where they could impact trust and confidence

Integrity compared to honesty

The SRA, supported by the courts, has confirmed that acting without integrity does not always mean acting dishonestly. A solicitor who fails to check the basis for transactions, turns a blind eye to suspicious activity, or acts recklessly with client interests may lack integrity even if not subjectively dishonest. The Court of Appeal has described integrity as adherence to the ethical standards of the profession: it involves more than mere honesty and requires particular care not to mislead and to be scrupulous about accuracy in professional contexts.

Key Term: acting without integrity
Failing to maintain professional standards, showing wilful or reckless disregard for regulatory rules, or being indifferent to the potential risk of harm to clients or others.

Worked Example 1.1

A junior solicitor signs several cheques from a client account as instructed by a senior partner, without querying their purpose. Later, the SRA finds the payments were not authorised by the client and some went to the senior partner’s associate. There is no evidence that the junior solicitor benefited or knew of the wrongdoing, but the SRA is investigating.

Question: Has the junior solicitor acted without integrity? Is there necessarily dishonesty?

Answer:
The junior solicitor's lack of enquiries and failure to safeguard client money show a disregard for professional standards expected of a solicitor—hence a lack of integrity. Unless it is shown that the junior solicitor intended any wrongdoing or realised the impropriety, they have not acted dishonestly. Dishonesty requires a subjective element; integrity is breached by reckless or indifferent conduct.

Examples of conduct showing lack of integrity

• Failing to safeguard client money
• Knowingly or recklessly breaching SRA rules or undertakings
• Allowing or enabling misleading statements to persist by omission
• Acting when professionally conflicted without proper steps or disclosure
• Taking unfair advantage of clients or third parties
• Backdating or creating documents to mask errors
• Ignoring clear money laundering red flags or due diligence failures
• Charging excessive or opportunistic fees to vulnerable clients

Key Term: undertaking
An undertaking is a legally binding promise by a solicitor or law firm, given orally or in writing, to do or not do something in the course of practice, on which the recipient can reasonably rely.

Undertakings are personal and enforceable; firms are also bound where given by someone representing the firm. Undertakings should have clear, realistic timescales, and solicitors should avoid promises reliant on third parties. Breach may result in personal liability and regulatory action. Acting with integrity requires not giving undertakings that cannot be fulfilled and proactively communicating if performance becomes impossible.

Worked Example 1.2

A solicitor gives a written undertaking to transfer funds on completion of a transaction. The solicitor knows funds are not yet available and fails to inform the recipient. The transfer is not made. Is this a lack of integrity?

Answer:
Yes. Giving an undertaking that is impossible or reckless as to its fulfilment demonstrates a lack of integrity, even if there was no intent to deceive. Such conduct jeopardises public trust in solicitors' undertakings and fails to meet professional standards.

Relationship to other SRA Principles

A lack of integrity usually also causes a breach of other Principles. For example, acting without integrity often means:

• risking public trust (Principle 2)
• failing to act in the client's best interests (Principle 7)
• failing to comply with legal or regulatory obligations (Principle 1 or Principle 6)
• potentially compromising independence (Principle 3) if personal interests or external pressures drive the conduct

However, it does not always automatically equate to dishonesty or result in criminal liability. The distinction is important both for scenario analysis and for practical decision-making. Where Principles conflict, those safeguarding the wider public interest—such as upholding the rule of law and maintaining a trustworthy profession—take precedence over an individual client’s interests.

Exam Warning

For the SQE2 exam, do not assume that the absence of dishonesty or personal gain means there is no breach of integrity. Integrity is judged by objective professional standards. Always analyse the facts for recklessness, carelessness, or disregard for required conduct, not just intent.

Common scenarios in SQE2 assessments

Assessors expect you to:

• Identify lack of integrity in both overt acts (e.g. covering up mistakes) and failures to do the right thing (e.g. not correcting a client’s misunderstanding).
• Distinguish when a solicitor is liable for lack of integrity without being dishonest.
• Explain what practical steps should have been taken to act with integrity.
• Recognise the risks around undertakings (including reliance on third parties), conflicts and confidentiality, safeguarding client money, and avoiding unfair advantage over unrepresented opponents.

Practical steps often include:

• pausing the matter to seek clarification or authority
• making appropriate enquiries and documenting them
• escalating concerns to a supervisor, COLP/COFA or the Professional Ethics helpline
• correcting misleading impressions as soon as discovered
• withdrawing where continuing would mislead the court or breach conflicts/confidentiality rules

Worked Example 1.3

A solicitor is instructed in a property transaction and notes some facts that do not add up (e.g. the client wishes to pay unusually large sums in cash). The solicitor does not raise any queries or record any investigation, and proceeds as normal.

Question: What principle is engaged? Is there a problem with integrity?

Answer:
The solicitor's lack of active enquiry breaches the duty of integrity—by failing to act with the alertness and scepticism required to prevent wrongdoing. Even without evidence of dishonesty, the conduct does not meet professional expectations. They should have undertaken appropriate due diligence and documented their reasoning.

The test for lack of integrity

The key legal assessment for lack of integrity is whether the solicitor was wilfully or recklessly indifferent to the standards required of the profession. It is an objective evaluation based on what is expected of a competent and ethical solicitor. Indicators include:

• ignoring or not caring what the rules require
• failing to make basic checks a competent practitioner would make
• permitting clients or third parties to be misled, or allowing misleading impressions to persist
• taking unfair advantage of vulnerable clients or litigants in person
• knowingly or recklessly causing harm or distress to another
• treating undertakings casually or using them as bargaining tools

This is different from dishonesty, which requires that the solicitor’s conduct, in light of what they knew or believed about the facts at the time, falls short of the standards of ordinary decent people. A dishonest act will almost always lack integrity, but a lack of integrity can exist without the subjective element required for dishonesty.

Worked Example 1.4

A solicitor fails to write up a note of a key negotiation meeting. Months later, when a dispute arises, they recreate a note from memory and date it as if prepared at the time, presenting it to the client as a contemporaneous record.

Question: Does this breach integrity? Is it necessarily dishonest?

Answer:
Backdating or presenting a reconstructed note as contemporaneous is a lack of integrity. It misrepresents the accuracy and timing of the record and undermines trust. Whether it is dishonest depends on the solicitor’s state of knowledge and belief at the time; even if not dishonest, the conduct falls below professional standards.

Worked Example 1.5

A sole practitioner is instructed by an elderly testator to draft a will. Knowing the client cannot compare market rates, the solicitor charges materially above their normal fee for identical work without explaining or justifying the increase.

Question: Does this raise integrity concerns?

Answer:
Yes. Taking unfair advantage of a vulnerable client reflects a lack of integrity. It may also engage Principle 2 (public trust) and Principle 7 (best interests). Overcharging, particularly where opportunistic or concealed, undermines the profession’s ethical standards.

Worked Example 1.6

A solicitor acts for both a borrower and a lender on a residential purchase. The solicitor learns the borrower intends to grant a subletting that would breach the lender’s standard mortgage terms, but the borrower refuses consent to disclosure.

Question: What is the integrity-compliant response?

Answer:
Continuing to act while allowing the lender to be misled would lack integrity. The solicitor must seek consent to disclose; if consent is refused, the solicitor should cease to act for both clients to prevent misleading and to protect confidentiality. The duty of confidentiality prevails over disclosure, but acting with integrity requires withdrawing rather than proceeding in silence.

Practical application across Codes and Principles

Acting with integrity runs through several specific Code of Conduct requirements:

• Maintaining trust and acting fairly (Para 1), including not abusing position to take unfair advantage (Para 1.2), performing undertakings (Para 1.3), and not misleading clients, courts or others (Para 1.4).
• Dispute resolution duties (Para 2), including not seeking to influence the substance of evidence and only putting forward properly arguable submissions.
• Service and competence (Para 3), ensuring timely, competent work and appropriate supervision.
• Client money and assets (Para 4), safeguarding client property and accounting properly for financial benefits such as commissions.
• Conflicts, confidentiality and disclosure (Para 6), avoiding own interest conflicts (no exceptions) and only acting in client conflicts where narrow exceptions and safeguards apply; protecting client confidential information and managing the interplay with disclosure duties.

Acting with integrity often requires more than minimal compliance: it requires proactively addressing risks, correcting mistakes promptly, and prioritising fairness and transparency.

Integrity in dealings with unrepresented parties and vulnerable clients

The duty not to abuse position by taking unfair advantage is a frequent integrity issue. Examples include:

• sending overly legalistic or intimidating correspondence to a litigant in person
• threatening litigation without legal basis
• exploiting confusion or vulnerability (e.g. pressuring settlement terms in the absence of advice)

An integrity-compliant approach balances robust representation with fairness: ensure communications are clear, accurate, and not oppressive; do not mislead; and avoid tactics that rely on the other side’s lack of representation.

Integrity and private conduct impacting public trust

Although the duty applies primarily in professional contexts, private conduct may engage Principle 2 and, depending on circumstances, reflect a lack of integrity (e.g. offensive communications suggesting discriminatory attitudes, involvement in high-risk or fraudulent investment schemes). Where private conduct risks undermining trust in the profession, integrity requires restraint, professionalism, and awareness that reputational harm can engage regulatory scrutiny.

Steps to take when integrity issues arise

• Identify the issue clearly and record facts and reasoning in an attendance note.
• Stop and reassess before proceeding; seek supervision where needed.
• Correct any misleading impression promptly, and notify affected parties where appropriate.
• Avoid undertaking commitments you cannot fulfil; where difficulties arise, communicate early and candidly.
• Where continuing would mislead the court or breach conflicts/confidentiality rules, withdraw for professional reasons while preserving confidentiality.
• Escalate serious concerns to the COLP/COFA and consider whether an internal report is necessary under firm policies. Managers and compliance officers must consider prompt reporting to the SRA where there are reasonable grounds to believe a serious breach has occurred.

Revision Tip

For scenario questions, consider both honesty and integrity. Ask first whether the conduct risks misleading anyone or shows a wilful or reckless disregard of standards. Then assess if the facts support dishonesty. If dishonesty is unclear, explain the integrity breach and the corrective steps required.

Key Point Checklist

This article has covered the following key knowledge points:

• The obligation to act with integrity is set out in Principle 5 of the SRA Principles 2019 and applies to all solicitors, employees, and firms regulated by the SRA.
• Integrity is distinct from, and broader than, honesty. Lack of integrity may exist even where there is no dishonesty.
• Conduct demonstrating a lack of integrity includes wilful or reckless indifference to proper standards, failing to enquire as appropriate, allowing misleading impressions to persist, taking unfair advantage, mishandling undertakings, and charging opportunistically.
• Undertakings are personal, enforceable promises; acting with integrity requires only giving undertakings that can be fulfilled and performing them within agreed or reasonable times.
• Acting with integrity links closely to duties not to mislead, to safeguard client money, and to avoid conflicts of interest; private conduct that undermines public trust can also engage the principle.
• When analysing breach of integrity for SQE2, focus on the objective standards of the profession—not just the subjective intent of the solicitor—and set out practical remedial or escalation steps.

Key Terms and Concepts

• integrity
• honesty
• acting without integrity
• undertaking