We recently sat down with long-standing friend of Enderley Consulting, Brian Evans, Managing Partner of Lanyon Bowdler and newly appointed Law Society Council Member.  Brian shared his impressions from the regulator’s new leadership, and what it might mean in practice.

There are moments in professional life when a change in tone feels genuinely significant. For Brian Evans, one such moment came at his first Law Society Council meeting in March, when Sarah Rapson – the SRA’s newly appointed Chief Executive – addressed the room.

We caught up with Brian to hear his take on what’s changing at the regulator, how Lanyon Bowdler approaches compliance in practice, and why this moment might matter more than it first appears.

First, a bit of context: what is the Law Society Council?

The Council comprises around 100 members drawn from geographic seats, practice area specialisms, and seats representing groups including young lawyers, women solicitors, and LGBTQ+ members. It’s a body designed to keep the Law Society connected to what’s actually happening across the profession.

“We’re supposed to have a finger on the pulse of what’s going on in the profession, what’s important to the profession,” Brian explains. Day-to-day operations sit with the Board and employed executives; the Council’s role is strategic oversight — making sure the Society remains genuinely aligned with its members’ needs.

A shift in tone at the SRA

When Sarah Rapson spoke at the March Council meeting, the message landed differently from what many in the room had grown used to hearing from the regulator.

“There was an acknowledgement that things haven’t gone particularly well in a number of areas – Axiom, SSB, and others – and a recognition that the SRA needs to do something about that,” says Brian. “But what was really nice was hearing that, actually, we’re all on the same side. We want a profession that can grow and thrive and prosper, and we both have an interest in ensuring we have a profession that behaves ethically and abides by the rules.”

That framing – shared purpose rather than regulatory distance – is worth pausing on. For compliance professionals who have spent years navigating an enforcement-first culture, it represents a meaningful shift in starting position.

Rapson outlined three priorities for the SRA going forward:

Operational excellence  a commitment to improving the SRA’s own performance, not just scrutinising others’.

Open and engaged partnership – a more collaborative stance toward the profession, moving away from the arm’s-length regulatory posture that has frustrated many firms.

Proactive risk identification – perhaps the most substantive shift. Rather than waiting for failures to occur and then responding, the SRA aims to identify problems early, before they escalate into the kinds of crises that have damaged the profession’s reputation.

What does this look like in practice?

Rapson’s priorities weren’t just aspirational language. The SRA has already begun implementing concrete changes:

• Using data and intelligence to build firm risk profiles, allowing enforcement resources to focus where they’re most needed rather than being spread reactively across the board.
• Moving toward proportionate enforcement – reaching for a wider toolkit of regulatory responses rather than defaulting to formal investigation.
• Working with LawCare to reduce unnecessary stress on the profession. One small but telling example: no longer sending investigation notification letters at 4pm on a Friday.
• Planning a formal consultation in November 2026 on its next three-year strategy – an opportunity for the profession to genuinely shape regulatory direction.

That last point is one compliance teams and firm leadership shouldn’t overlook. Consultations of this kind are often underused by the profession, yet they represent real leverage over how the regulatory environment evolves.

“The proof will be in the eating”

Brian is cautiously optimistic, but clear-eyed about it.

“I think so,” he says when asked whether this feels like a breath of fresh air. “There was certainly a change in tone, and we liked what we heard. It seemed very positive. The proof will be in the eating, and we’ll have to see how things develop.”

He notes that the SRA has already committed to bringing in senior external hires to work through some of the issues that need addressing – which he sees as an encouraging signal that the rhetoric is backed by intent.

For firms and compliance professionals, the honest question is: how much weight should this shift in tone carry until the operational reality catches up? The SRA’s track record on cases like Axiom and SSB has left a residue of caution in the profession that warm words alone won’t dissolve. What will build confidence is consistency – in how investigations are handled, how proportionality is applied, and how quickly the new approach becomes the norm rather than the exception.

How Lanyon Bowdler approaches the regulatory relationship

Brian is refreshingly candid about his own firm’s experience. Lanyon Bowdler – a full-service regional firm of around 250 staff across seven offices in Shropshire, Herefordshire, and North Wales – has maintained what he describes as a genuinely positive relationship with the regulator.

We were selected for a desktop review of anti-money laundering controls a couple of years ago and found them to be really quite good to work with. We responded, they identified a couple of areas for improvement, we implemented those, and that was that.”

It’s a model worth holding up, particularly at a time when the SRA is explicitly signalling that it wants to reward proactive, transparent engagement. Self-reporting and open dialogue with the regulator – rather than hoping problems go unnoticed – looks like increasingly smart compliance strategy under the new framework.

Brian also highlights a resource that his team has found unexpectedly valuable: the SRA’s Professional Ethics Helpline. The firm recently hired a compliance officer from a non-legal background, and the helpline has proven a useful reference point. It’s a reminder that the SRA’s support functions, not just its enforcement arm, can be a genuine asset to firms that choose to engage with them.

What else is the Law Society working on?

Beyond the SRA relationship, Brian points to several active areas of work where the Law Society is advocating on the profession’s behalf:

Following the Mazur Court of Appeal judgment, there’s ongoing dialogue about what appropriate supervision and management of delegated litigation steps should look like – a practically important question for many firms managing caseloads across mixed teams.

On AML, the Society is actively lobbying on proposed regulatory changes – including the contentious issue of oversight moving from the SRA to the FCA. For compliance teams, this is one to watch closely; a shift of that kind would have significant implications for how firms structure their AML controls and reporting.

The Society has responded to consultations on client money and complaints handling – two areas where the gap between policy intention and day-to-day firm experience can be considerable.

A more immediate call to action

Right now, there’s a consultation open on the practising certificate fee – and it closes on 15 May.

“Part of the PC fee goes to the Law Society, with a big chunk going to the SRA and other sector organisations,” Brian explains. “This consultation is a chance for people to have their say on whether the Law Society is using that contribution by supporting its members – are we looking at the right things with our Five Missions?”

It takes around ten minutes. For compliance professionals and firm leaders who care about how the professional bodies spend their money and set their priorities, it’s a straightforward way to be heard.

So – does this moment matter?

The SRA’s acknowledgement of past failures, the appointment of new leadership with a visible commitment to partnership, and the early operational changes all point in a positive direction. The shift from reactive enforcement to proactive risk identification – if it holds – could meaningfully change the compliance landscape for well-run firms.

But Brian’s phrase stays with us: the proof will be in the eating. The legal sector has seen regulatory repositioning before. What will distinguish this one is whether the profession and the regulator can sustain the collaborative intent when things get difficult – when enforcement decisions are contested, when high-profile failures occur, when the pressure to revert to old habits is at its highest.

For now, the direction of travel looks right. Firms that engage proactively – with the SRA, with Law Society consultations, and with their own compliance cultures are best placed to benefit from it.

This article is based on an interview conducted by Enderley Consulting in April 2026 with Brian Evans, Managing Partner of Lanyon Bowdler. Views expressed are Brian’s personal observations based on publicly disclosed information from the Law Society Council meeting of March 2026.