Introduction
The legal profession in the United Kingdom has historically been grounded in the key principles of ethics – integrity, independence, and a steadfast commitment to justice. Yet, in recent years, the very essence of these values has been called into question. Lawyers are under the spotlight not just for their clients’ actions but for their own ethical lapses. The article “Pointing the Finger” in the Law Society’s Gazette of 11 April 2025[1] brings this to light, exposing a growing perception that lawyers have become mere mercenaries for hire, prioritising client interest and profitability over professional integrity.
This article explores the current state of legal ethics in the UK, drawing upon insights from the Gazette’s article, regulatory reviews, and global comparisons. It asks whether internationalisation and the pursuit of profit are eroding the profession’s ethical foundation, and what the implications are for the rule of law. By looking abroad – to the United States, Russia, and Iran – we also look at what happens when legal ethics are either compromised or courageously upheld in hostile environments.
Ethics at the Heart of Legal Practice
Ethics is not an optional accessory to legal practice. In England and Wales solicitors must abide by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) Principles, which mandate integrity, independence, and acting in the public interest. The Bar Standards Board (BSB) imposes similar expectations on barristers, extending even into their non-professional lives.
These professional codes aim to safeguard not only the public but the justice system itself. Whilst ethical conduct underpins the significant privileges lawyers enjoy nevertheless, as Joanna Goodman’s article in the Gazette outlines, recent scandals and regulatory failures suggest that these principles are not being consistently applied or supported.
From Post Office to SLAPPs: When Ethics Fail
The involvement of lawyers in high-profile scandals—from the Post Office Inquiry to SLAPPs aimed at silencing critics – has undermined public trust. Lawyers have been accused of facilitating legal bullying, misusing NDAs, and aggressively pursuing litigation that borders on unethical conduct.
As recently as March this year, MP Lloyd Hatton, a member of the all-party anti-corruption parliamentary group, criticised the SRA for failing to sanction lawyers who were facilitating ‘legal intimidation’ on behalf of a Russian warlord[2]. As the Law Society Gazette reported, Hatton highlighted the regulator’s decision not to prosecute now-closed London practice Discreet Law, which had initially represented Wagner Group leader Yevgeny Prigozhin, reportedly on the basis that the firm had acted appropriately.
In November 2018, a Gazette article[3] stated that regulators had vowed to take action against any solicitor found to have neglected their wider obligations simply to keep a client happy, with the SRA reminding practitioners that they must adhere to all their professional obligations when engaged in litigation. The article reported that SRA Chief Executive, Paul Philip, had stated that whilst solicitors should of course advance their clients’ cases, they should not regard themselves as ‘hired guns’ whose only duty is to the client. He stated that:
“They also owe duties to the courts, third parties and to the public interest. It is important for solicitors to recognise their wider duties and never to rationalise misconduct on the mistaken basis that their only duty is to their client’ and that ‘Those who cross the line into misleading the courts or abusing the litigation process should have no doubt that if we have evidence of this, we will take action.’
More recently, the SRA’s Professional Obligations Thematic Review of 13 December 2024 found that about 20% of Compliance Officers for Legal Practice (COLPs) were unaware of basic reporting requirements. It stated that:
“A lack of knowledge fundamentally hinders an individual’s ability to make meaningful decisions. COLPs at 20% of the firms were not able to answer any of our technical questions about reporting obligations and had not reviewed our resources in this area. They had also never made a report to the SRA”.
It was also critical of those in solicitors’ firms generally, stating that:
“There is a culture of reliance in some firms on Compliance Officers for Legal Practice (‘COLPs’), compliance teams and external compliance companies. Each individual is personally accountable for compliance with our regulatory requirements. An unchecked reliance on others can encourage a lack of responsibility and a dependency on the knowledge and skills of others. This increases the pressure, stress and workload of others in the firm”.
Moreover, the SRA’s own failure to properly supervise high-risk firms – as in the Axiom Ince case – raises serious concerns about systemic oversight, many of which were highlighted in the LSB commissioned Carson McDowell report[4].
Profit Pressure and Globalisation: A Dangerous Drift
Globalisation has redefined legal practice. International mega-firms and cross-border cases have increased complexity and competition, shifting focus towards profitability and market share. Metrics such as Profit Per Equity Partner (PEP) now drive firm strategy, subtly influencing decisions on client selection, legal tactics, and ethical priorities.
This commercial ethos can marginalise ethical reflection. As businesses demand cost-efficient, risk-tolerant legal advice, lawyers may feel compelled to push ethical boundaries. The “hired gun” mentality, where solicitors act as loyal agents for powerful clients, often overrides their responsibility to the public and the justice system.
Ethics education is also lacking. Many COLP and COFA courses allocate just 60 minutes to ethics, despite the increasing complexity of legal work. Ongoing training and scenario-based learning are rarely embedded into firm culture.
The Regulator’s Role: Falling Short or Finding Its Feet?
The SRA and BSB regulate over 90% of legal professionals in England and Wales, yet their effectiveness has been questioned. The Legal Services Board (LSB) recently rated both as “insufficient” in leadership and operational delivery[5]. In response, the LSB has launched a consultation on upholding professional ethical duties, proposing five outcomes to foster ethical decision-making. Entitled “Upholding Professional Ethical Duties” and published on 6 March 2025[6], the consultation stated that it found the underlying reasons driving poor conduct were:
- “A lack of understanding and/or due regard to the significance of what upholding professional ethical duties means in practice, and how to prioritise different duties when they come into conflict with each other – namely, duties to the client, duties to act with independence and integrity, and duties to the court to act with independence in the interests of justice;
- A disproportionate focus on the duty to act in the best interests of the client to the detriment of other professional ethical duties; and
- A lack of empowerment and support to enable authorised persons to maintain their professional ethical duties in the face of commercial pressures and powerful clients, including for those working in an in-house capacity”.
The LSB’s solution is to require regulators to:
“ensure those they regulate understand and uphold their professional ethical duties, based on the professional principles in the Act”.
However, the LSB itself has not escaped criticism. Some, like legal regulation specialist Paul Bennett, argue that it should be abolished for its failure to hold other regulators accountable.
Cultural change cannot be mandated through policy alone.
Ethical Failings Abroad: A Comparative Lens
The UK’s ethical dilemmas may seem minor compared to the threats faced by lawyers abroad. However, these cases underscore the risks of losing professional independence and the importance of robust ethical frameworks.
In the United States, several lawyers allied with Donald Trump during the 2020 election faced sanctions, disbarment, and public condemnation for advancing false claims. The contrast is stark: some lawyers faced professional consequences for misleading the court, while others endured abuse for upholding democratic norms.
President Trump also directly targeted law firms that opposed his administration or were seen to promote liberal or Democratic-aligned principles. In one notable instance, Trump used executive orders to limit the ability of law firms to represent clients who brought litigation against federal agencies, particularly in environmental and civil rights matters. These measures were perceived by many as attempts to chill legal advocacy and deter firms from accepting cases that challenged his administration’s policies.
Additionally, Trump publicly criticised major firms – including those representing media organisations and civil liberties groups – through social media and official statements. This included naming and shaming lawyers by name, fuelling online harassment and reputational attacks. Such tactics blurred the line between political rhetoric and intimidation, sending a message that legal opposition would be met with personal and institutional retribution.
Beyond public attacks, there were also reported efforts to politically vet and discredit lawyers considered “disloyal” or insufficiently supportive of the administration. Some government contracts and advisory roles were allegedly steered away from firms perceived as hostile to the Trump agenda. These actions collectively created a climate in which legal representation was no longer neutral but a potential liability – a dangerous precedent for any democratic legal system.
In Russia, the legal defence of opposition leader Alexei Navalny led to the imprisonment of his lawyers under dubious charges. Their offence? Upholding their ethical duty to represent a client fairly, regardless of political consequences.
In Iran, lawyers like Amirsalar Davoudi and Mohammad Najafi have received lashes and long prison sentences for defending human rights activists and criticising the judiciary. Here, the ethical obligation to advocate for justice is punished as a political crime.
These cases serve as both a warning and a call to action. The erosion of ethical independence in any legal system is not just a professional issue – it is a democratic one.
Changing the Culture: What Needs to Happen
Professional ethics must be reinforced at every level. This means mandatory, immersive ethics training, not tokenistic seminars. It requires ethics to be seen as an integral part of the practice of law. Support systems are vital, and cultural norms must also shift to empower junior lawyers to raise concerns without fear.
Regulatory alignment is crucial. The current fragmentation between the SRA, BSB, and LSB creates confusion. A unified ethical framework, supported by scenario-based guidance and clear accountability chains, would help lawyers make better decisions.
The courts, too, must take ethics more seriously. Ethical issues are often dismissed as procedural matters rather than fundamental breaches. Judges, regulators, and legal educators must all work in concert to elevate ethics from a peripheral concern to a central pillar of legal practice.
What is more, ethical standards must apply equally to all lawyers irrespective of education, background, age, religion, nationality or any of the other reasons regularly put forward as to why a particular ethical failing should be excused.
Conclusion: A Fork in the Road
The UK legal profession stands at a crossroads. The path towards commercial dominance and international prestige is tempting, but potentially corrosive. The alternative – recommitting to ethics, independence, and public service – requires courage, investment, and cultural transformation.
Ethics must not be reduced to compliance checklists or moral abstractions. They are the foundation upon which legal legitimacy rests. If the profession continues to drift towards the “hired gun” model, it risks not only its own reputation but the integrity of the justice system itself.
Ethics is a cornerstone of legal practice in the UK because it underpins the trust placed in solicitors and barristers by clients, the courts, and the wider public. Legal professionals deal with sensitive and confidential matters, and their clients rely on them to act with integrity, honesty, and in the client’s best interests. Without a strong ethical foundation, this trust would quickly erode, undermining the profession’s ability to function effectively and fairly.
Although the UK legal system is adversarial in nature, it relies heavily on the ethical conduct of legal professionals to maintain fairness and justice. The duty to the court can, at times, override the duty to the client, and this delicate balance requires practitioners to exercise sound ethical judgment. It ensures that justice is not only done but is seen to be done, preserving public confidence in the legal system.
Ethical principles are also central to regulatory compliance. The SRA Code of Conduct, for example, places a strong emphasis on upholding the rule of law, acting with independence, and maintaining public trust. Failure to adhere to these principles can result in disciplinary action, loss of practising rights, or even criminal prosecution. This regulatory framework reinforces the idea that ethical behaviour is not optional but essential to maintaining professional standards.
Moreover, ethics guide solicitors through complex, real-world dilemmas where the law may be silent or unclear. In such situations, legal professionals must draw on their ethical training to navigate potential conflicts of interest, client vulnerability, or broader questions of justice and fairness. This moral compass is crucial in a rapidly evolving legal landscape, where emerging technologies and global challenges frequently outpace existing legal provisions.
Finally, ethical conduct promotes a healthy and sustainable legal profession. It fosters a culture of respect, accountability, and social responsibility within law firms and the wider legal community. By embedding ethical principles into everyday practice, legal professionals contribute to a more just society and help ensure that the legal profession continues to be respected, resilient, and fit for the future.
If we abandon ethics in legal practice because it is no longer cost-effective or politically expedient to do so, then we will be debasing the whole system that we claim to represent. Moreover, we will erode the very thing that we should be seeking to retain – the trust of a public willing to place their futures in our hands. By learning from past failings and global cautionary tales, the UK can reclaim its place as a beacon of ethical legal practice. But only if it chooses to do so.
[1] https://edition.pagesuite.com/html5/reader/production/default.aspx?pubname=&edid=20e1803d-b781-4daf-8a8a-819798c09866
[2] https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/sra-under-fire-for-ignoring-legal-intimidation-tactics/5122584.article#
[3] https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/solicitors-warned-about-acting-as-hired-guns-for-dubious-clients/5068469.article
[4] https://legalservicesboard.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Independent-Review-of-the-Regulatory-Events-Leading-up-to-the-SRAs-Intervention-into-Axiom-Ince-Lim.pdf
[5] https://legalservicesboard.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/LSB-regulatory-performance-assessment-2025.pdf
[6] https://legalservicesboard.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/PERL-Consultation-Document-February-2025.pdf