SRA proposes a standalone supervision competence and new AI expectations for solicitors

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has opened a consultation on changes to the Statement of Solicitor Competence.

The proposals give greater weight to technology and AI, professional ethics, supervision, and health and wellbeing, and they would make supervision a competence in its own right for the first time.

For compliance officers for legal practice (COLPs), managing partners and anyone responsible for training and supervising staff, the questions are practical. How does your firm assess competence? How does it oversee delegated work, including work produced with AI? Could it show that appropriate standards are being maintained?

The consultation, Review of the Statement of Solicitor Competence and the SQE Functioning Legal Knowledge, was published on 8 October 2026. The SRA says it is not seeking any change to its rules or regulatory arrangements. But the proposals show where it expects competence to go, particularly on technology, and they follow the closer scrutiny of supervision after Mazur.

Key dates

• 8 October 2026: consultation opens
• 3 December 2026 (23.59): consultation closes
• April 2027: SRA publishes its response and final versions of the Statement of Solicitor Competence and Functioning Legal Knowledge
• September 2027: any changes would take effect
• January 2028: SQE1 assessments would reflect them

Why is the SRA reviewing solicitor competence?

The Statement of Solicitor Competence sets out what solicitors must be able to do to perform their role effectively. It underpins the Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE) and is the tool solicitors use to identify learning needs under the continuing competence framework. It is more than ten years old, and the SRA committed to reviewing it as part of its evaluation of the SQE.

The proposed changes fall into four areas:

• technology and AI
• professional conduct and ethics
• supervision
• health and wellbeing.

The SRA also proposes minor changes on equality, diversity and inclusion, plus plainer language and some restructuring. The consultation covers the SQE’s Functioning Legal Knowledge as well, though that is mainly of interest to training providers and those preparing candidates.

Why it matters when no rules are changing

The competence statement is not a rulebook. The SRA is clear that the binding rules sit in its Standards and Regulations, and that it must not introduce new obligations through the competence statement. But the statement is the reference point solicitors use to decide what learning they need. And under paragraph 4.3 of the Code of Conduct for Firms, a firm must ensure that its managers and employees are competent to carry out their role. When the reference point changes, so does what a competent firm looks like.

The consultation sits alongside a separate one, Strengthening our continuing competence approach, which closed on 15 July 2026. That consultation dealt with rules on recording learning and development and on ethics discussions (see below). This one concerns the competences themselves. Read together, they show a regulator that wants firms to demonstrate that competence is maintained, not assume it.

1. AI and technology: checking outputs and supervising their use

The SRA does not propose a standalone technology competence. It would build AI and technology into existing competences:

• Ethics, professionalism and judgement: maintaining competence while taking account of developments in law and technology, including AI
• Legal research: checking and evaluating research outputs, including those produced with AI, against primary sources
• Drafting: making appropriate use of precedents and technology, including AI
• Supervision: having clear oversight of work being done, including the use of technology and AI.

The SRA’s concern is evident from its warning notice on the misuse of AI, published on 17 August 2026 after it received 42 reports of potential AI misuse in the 12 months to July 2026. The notice focuses on two concerns: inaccurate information reaching courts and clients, including fabricated citations, and breaches of client confidentiality. It stresses that AI has no separate legal personality, so those who use it remain accountable for their work, and it reminds supervisors that they carry responsibility too. Our article on the warning notice covers the detail.

The Upper Tribunal has made the same point about supervisors: in Munir, it said that a supervisor who fails to ensure a junior colleague’s work is free of false authorities is likely to be more culpable than a lawyer who fails to check their own work. 

What this means for COLPs and managing partners

An AI policy that only permits or prohibits particular tools is not enough. Firms should be able to answer five questions:

• Do staff know which AI tools they may use, and for what?
• Are there clear verification requirements for AI-generated research, citations and drafts?
• Do supervisors understand the technology used by the people whose work they oversee, and the risk of unchecked AI research reaching a court?
• Are confidentiality, data protection and information security risks addressed?
• Can the firm show that a person reviewed the work before it was relied on or sent outside the firm?

A written policy is the starting point. It needs training, controls and evidence that staff understand their responsibilities, and it needs regular review. AI policies date quickly, and a policy without a named owner and a review date soon falls behind how the tools are used in practice.

2. Professional ethics: moving beyond knowledge of the rules

Ethics is the first element of the competence statement, and the SRA proposes to strengthen it. The new competences include:

• prioritising ethical duties when they conflict with each other
• understanding when and how to raise concerns about ethical issues or unethical behaviour
• identifying the relevant ethical and regulatory frameworks, with express reference to warning notices and guidance.

The last point matters for COLPs. The SRA’s continuing competence consultation found that some solicitors did not know of, or have regard to, warning notices and guidance when planning their learning. It also reported that 52% of the 83,000 reports it analysed between 2019 and 2025 related to ethics, professionalism and judgement. The Legal Services Board’s March 2026 statement of policy on upholding professional ethical duties is part of the background.

Real ethical dilemmas rarely have a rulebook answer. A solicitor may face competing pressures from client instructions, duties to the court, confidentiality, commercial expectations or concerns about a colleague’s conduct. Annual compliance training covers the rules. Scenario-based discussion tests how staff apply them.

A format firms could pilot now

The continuing competence consultation proposed that every solicitor take part in at least three hours of facilitated ethics discussion each year. That is only a proposal, subject to the SRA’s decision and Legal Services Board approval, and the SRA said it would start no earlier than the 2027/28 practising year. But the proposed format shows what the SRA has in mind. Sessions would be led by a solicitor with at least three years’ experience and no regulatory or disciplinary record, involve three to twelve participants, and require active discussion rather than a lecture. Non-solicitor staff could take part. For more on those proposals, see our summary of the continuing competence consultation.

Firms that want to build ethical competence now could start with realistic scenarios in team meetings and supervision sessions. Useful subjects include conflicts of interest, confidentiality, duties to the court, reporting concerns about colleagues and the ethics of using AI.

Culture matters as much as content. Staff need to feel able to raise concerns without fear of criticism, and senior people need to show that they act on them. The proposed supervision competence includes leading by example in promoting professional integrity and ethical practice. Our article on the SRA’s whistleblowing designation looks at the culture side.

3. Supervision after Mazur

For managing partners and department heads, the most significant proposal is a separate section on supervision. Supervision competences already exist, but they sit inside a general section on working relationships. The SRA proposes a dedicated section that aligns with its effective supervision guidance.

The proposed competences include being clear about delegation and expectations, having clear oversight of the work being done (including the use of technology and AI), knowing enough about matters to be sure legal and regulatory requirements are met, and recognising and responding to wellbeing concerns in those they supervise.

The SRA names the Court of Appeal’s judgment in CILEX v Mazur & Others [2026] EWCA Civ 369. Handed down on 31 March 2026, it reversed the High Court’s September 2025 decision. It held that unauthorised staff can lawfully carry out litigation tasks for an authorised individual, provided that person retains responsibility and exercises proper direction, management, supervision and control. The flexibility depends on the quality of the supervision. On 12 June 2026 the SRA published its expanded supervision guidance, which covers delegation, the roles of supervisors and supervisees, and AI. Our analysis of that guidance explains why culture is the real test.

Mazur concerned litigation, but supervision is not confined to litigators. Paragraph 4.4 of the Code for Firms already requires an effective system for supervising clients’ matters, and the same questions arise whenever work is delegated to trainees, paralegals or technology.

What firms should be asking of themselves

1. Do supervisors have the skills for the role? Technical expertise does not make someone an effective supervisor. Supervisors need to understand delegation, risk assessment, performance monitoring, escalation, and when closer oversight is needed.
2. Do firms train supervisors? A newly appointed department head may have years as a fee earner but little experience of reviewing delegated work or dealing with competence concerns.
3. Is supervision proportionate to risk? The right level depends on the complexity of the work, the experience of the person doing it and the consequences of an error.
4. Can the firm show supervision happens in practice? File reviews, documented feedback, supervision meetings and clear escalation routes are the evidence.

4. Health and wellbeing The SRA proposes new competences on understanding the importance of your own health and wellbeing and knowing when to seek support, and on taking steps to create and promote an inclusive and healthy workplace culture. Supervisors would also be expected to recognise and respond to wellbeing concerns in the people they supervise, and provide support where appropriate. The SRA says these align with its wellbeing guidance.

Wellbeing is sometimes treated as an HR matter, but it affects the quality of legal work. A solicitor under excessive pressure is more likely to make mistakes. A junior who feels unable to question an instruction is less likely to flag a problem early. The proposals do not expect supervisors to act as healthcare professionals. They expect them to notice concerns and respond within their managerial role, including when workloads or deadlines are putting standards at risk.

5. What should COLPs and managing partners do now?

The consultation is open and the wording is not final, so firms should not treat the proposals as a new regulatory requirement. But many of the underlying principles are already part of the Code, the supervision guidance and the AI warning notice. A proportionate review now can find gaps without adding bureaucracy. We suggest five steps:

1. Review your competence and training framework. Check that learning and development covers ethical judgement, technology, supervision and wellbeing, not just technical law.
2. Assess supervisor competence. Check that department heads and team leaders have been trained for the role, including supervising AI-assisted work.
3. Revisit your AI policy and controls. Confirm that staff know the permitted uses, verification requirements and confidentiality risks, and that a named person owns the policy and its review.
4. Test supervision in practice. Use proportionate file reviews and compliance monitoring to see whether documented procedures are followed, and record and follow through any corrective action.
5. Add realistic ethics scenarios. Build them into team meetings, training and supervision, focusing on situations where staff face competing obligations.

For smaller firms, none of this needs a new administrative framework. Existing appraisals, file reviews, training records and management meetings can carry most of it.

6. Who is responsible for oversight of competence?

Responsibility for competence does not sit with the COLP alone. Under the Code of Conduct for Firms:

• the firm must have effective governance structures, systems and controls (2.1)
• the firm remains accountable for compliance where work is carried out through others (2.3)
• the firm must ensure managers and employees are competent to carry out their role (4.3) and have an effective system for supervising clients’ matters (4.4)
• managers are responsible for the firm’s compliance, jointly and severally (8.1)
• the COLP must take all reasonable steps to ensure compliance (9.1).

The COLP supports and monitors compliance, but effective competence management also needs senior management, department heads, supervisors and whoever runs learning and development. For firms with limited management capacity, the challenge is often making sure these responsibilities are clearly allocated and consistently exercised.

A good starting point is to record who is responsible for identifying training needs, approving learning, assessing supervisory competence, reviewing performance concerns and escalating potential regulatory issues. Where responsibilities overlap, check that everyone understands the arrangement and that significant concerns cannot fall between roles. Our guides to the COLP and COFA roles and the SRA’s compliance officer thematic review go into more detail.

What happens next?

The consultation closes at 23.59 on 3 December 2026. The SRA expects to publish its response and the final Statement of Solicitor Competence and Functioning Legal Knowledge in April 2027, with changes taking effect in September 2027. Firms, solicitors and other stakeholders can respond through the SRA’s online questionnaire. The SRA publishes and attributes responses unless asked not to, so say so if you want yours kept private.

Firms may want to comment in particular on how the supervision competences would work in practice, what the AI expectations mean for different practice settings, and how hard the revised framework would be to implement.

The continuing competence proposals are a separate process. The SRA has said it will analyse responses and decide how to proceed, and any rule changes need Legal Services Board approval. They include a requirement to keep records of learning and development for at least three years, a strengthened practising certificate declaration, and a new power to require specific learning where the SRA identifies a competence concern, including for non-authorised staff in regulated firms. Firms should follow the two processes separately.

From policy to demonstrable competence

The consultation introduces no new rules, but it shows where the SRA is heading: more weight on professional judgement, supervision that works in practice, responsible use of technology, and the ability to recognise and handle ethical problems.

For COLPs and managing partners, that goes beyond training records. Firms need to ask whether their people are equipped for their roles, whether supervisors have the skills and time to oversee work properly, and whether their systems would catch weaknesses before they become regulatory problems.

The lesson of Mazur is that delegation is legitimate and effective when supported by real supervision and accountability. The same applies to AI. Technology can assist legal professionals, but it cannot replace the judgement and responsibility of the people who use and supervise it. The test for any firm is whether its competence policy and training programme work in practice.

How Enderley Consulting can help

We work with law firms to understand their regulatory obligations and build practical, proportionate compliance arrangements. We can help you review supervision structures, find gaps in policies and procedures, assess compliance risks, and train COLPs, supervisors and other staff.

• COLP and COFA support for reviewing arrangements, policies, procedures and monitoring
• Compliance training for law firms
• Enderley InfoHub for ongoing professional development and compliance resources.

If your firm would benefit from an independent review of its competence, supervision or compliance arrangements, please contact us.