SRA Conflicts of Interest: Why Paragraph 6.1 Has No Exception and 6.2 Does

There is a striking asymmetry at the heart of the SRA rules on conflicts of interest, and most firms do not train to it. One of the two prohibitions can be cured by informed consent. The other cannot be cured by anything at all.

Both sit in Part 6 of the SRA Code of Conduct. Note the full current title before citing it: the Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs, RFLs and RSLs, registered Swiss lawyers having been added by amendments in effect from 11 April 2025. Any policy citing the Code for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs is naming a title that no longer exists.

The two rules, in their own words

Paragraph 6.1: you do not act if there is an own interest conflict or a significant risk of such a conflict.

Paragraph 6.2: you do not act in relation to a matter or particular aspect of it if you have a conflict of interest or a significant risk of such a conflict in relation to that matter or aspect of it, unless the clients have a substantially common interest, or the clients are competing for the same objective, and three conditions are met: all the clients have given informed consent, given or evidenced in writing; where appropriate, effective safeguards are in place to protect confidential information; and you are satisfied it is reasonable for you to act for all the clients.

The numbering is identical in the Code of Conduct for Firms, and the wording differs by a single indefinite article. Read them side by side and the asymmetry is on the face of the rule: 6.2 carries an unless, two exceptions and three conditions. 6.1 carries no unless at all.

The SRA says so in terms

This is not an inference. The SRA guidance on conflicts of interest states that when it comes to an own interest conflict there are no exceptions to the ban on acting, that obtaining the client consent to act will not change the position, and that neither will telling the client to obtain independent advice as to whether to allow you to continue to act.

Two refinements make the point sharper than the usual summary. First, the more precise framing is not that 6.1 is absolute and 6.2 has exceptions, but that of the three prohibitions in Part 6, only 6.1 has no exception. Paragraph 6.5, which covers acting against a former client whose material confidential information you hold, has its own two exceptions including informed written consent. Second, both 6.1 and 6.2 bite on a significant risk of a conflict, not only an actual one. Firms get caught at the risk stage, before anything has gone wrong.

What the Glossary actually says

The definitions matter more than the rules, because they are what decides whether you are in Part 6 at all.

An own interest conflict means any situation where your duty to act in the best interests of any client in relation to a matter conflicts, or there is a significant risk that it may conflict, with your own interests in relation to that or a related matter.

A conflict of interest means a situation where your separate duties to act in the best interests of two or more clients in relation to the same or a related matters conflict. The plural is in the live Glossary and the sentence is ungrammatical as a result; the SRA own guidance renders the same definition in the singular, as the same or a related matter. If you are quoting the Glossary, quote what it says.

The SRA lists four sources of own interest conflict: a financial interest of yours or someone close to you; a personal or business relationship of yours; your role as an employee; and your own conduct, as a firm or an individual, for example where the wrong advice has been given or the wrong action taken.

The two exceptions are narrower than they read

A substantially common interest means a clear common purpose between the clients and a strong consensus on how it is to be achieved. Competing for the same objective is defined by reference to an objective which, if attained by one client, will make it unattainable to the others, and objective is confined to an asset, contract or business opportunity sought through a liquidation or other insolvency process, an auction or tender, or a bid or offer. Public takeovers are expressly carved out.

The effective safeguards condition is where firms most often overestimate what they have. The SRA guidance states that the courts have made it clear that such safeguards require established, structural separation within a firm so that confidential information cannot pass between the lawyers acting for each client, and that this will need to include separate fee earners acting for the clients. An information barrier between two fee earners on the same team does not qualify.

On whether it is reasonable to act, the guidance gives a usable test for the commonest case: if you foresee the need for substantive negotiations between the clients, then you should not act unless one of the exceptions applies. The narrow window where acting is possible is where the clients are already agreed on all of the relevant terms and all of the relevant information can be shared openly between them.

There is no conflicts training requirement. None.

The word training does not appear anywhere in either Code of Conduct. Not once in the Code for Solicitors, RELs, RFLs and RSLs, and not once in the Code for Firms.

Nor is there a minimum hours requirement. The SRA continuing competence FAQs answer the question directly: there is no minimum requirement. Solicitors must instead reflect on their work and complete learning and development that keeps them competent. Record keeping is not even a regulatory requirement, though the SRA says you should consider how you can evidence that you are maintaining your competence. The only hard obligation is the declaration on practising certificate renewal. See our guide to SRA continuing competence for how that declaration works in practice.

The contrast with anti-money laundering is the cleanest way to explain what a mandate looks like when there is one. Regulation 24(1) of the Money Laundering Regulations 2017 requires a relevant person to ensure that relevant employees are regularly given training in how to recognise and deal with transactions and other activities or situations which may be related to money laundering or terrorist financing, and to maintain a record in writing of the training given. Mandatory, recurring, recorded. Conflicts has nothing of the kind.

What the obligation is instead

Outcomes, not courses. Paragraph 2.1 of the Code for Firms requires effective governance structures, arrangements, systems and controls that ensure compliance with the SRA regulatory arrangements. Paragraph 2.2 requires records to demonstrate compliance. Paragraph 4.3 requires that managers and employees are competent to carry out their role and keep their knowledge and understanding of their legal, ethical and regulatory obligations up to date. Paragraph 4.4 requires an effective system for supervising client matters.

Read together, the duty is to have competent people, working systems and effective supervision. Training is evidence of discharging those duties, not the duty itself. A firm with no conflicts training and a demonstrably effective conflict search is compliant. A firm with an annual e-learning module and a conflict search nobody runs is not.

Where firms actually get caught

A structural point worth knowing: under the 2019 Standards and Regulations there is no conveyancing-specific conflicts rule any more. The words conveyancing, buyer, seller, lender, mortgage, borrower, executor and probate appear nowhere in either Code. Everything runs through 6.1, 6.2 and the Principles. There is no safe-harbour list and no prescribed consent form, so the burden of judgement sits with the firm.

Two recent Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal outcomes show the range.

In SRA v Westwood, case 12610-2024, judgment dated 25 October 2024, the allegation was that between September 2016 and October 2020 the respondent acted in five conveyancing transactions where there was a conflict of interest or significant risk of an own interest conflict between his lender client and himself, charged for the post-2019 conduct under paragraphs 3.2 and 6.1. A second allegation, failing to disclose to the lender client that the borrower was an immediate relative or himself, was charged under paragraph 6.4. The Tribunal imposed a fine of 12,500 pounds and costs of 19,670 pounds. Note that the non-disclosure is a separate breach sitting on top of the conflict.

In SRA v Daniel, case 12699-2024, judgment dated 23 September 2025, the respondent acted for a defendant in criminal proceedings arising from a domestic abuse incident in which a former client was the complainant. Charged under paragraphs 6.2 and 6.5, the Tribunal determined that none of the exceptions applied in this case, and imposed a two-month suspension with costs of 19,277 pounds.

Three places the rules bite that firms under-rate

Probate where the solicitor is also executor. The SRA guidance on drafting and preparation of wills states that you must not exploit a client lack of knowledge by leading them to believe that appointing a solicitor as an executor is essential or that it is the default position. Where a client wishes to make a gift of significant value to you or a family member, you should satisfy yourself the client has first taken independent legal advice, and you will usually need to cease acting if the client does not agree to take it.

Limited retainers. Firms reach for these to engineer around 6.2 and the SRA has pre-empted it: it would normally expect limited retainers to be entered into only at the clients request rather than at your suggestion, says it has not seen a case where the retainer was limited at the client genuine request, and states that limiting retainers so that clients are not advised on the risks of a transaction has amounted to misconduct.

Your own mistake. The fourth category of own interest conflict is the firm own conduct, and it collides with the duty to put matters right. The SRA guidance is blunt: you will not be able to advise on the merits of options to rectify the matter, or on losses suffered, where one of those options is a professional negligence claim against you. There is limited latitude to protect the client position in an emergency, for example issuing an application where a limitation period is imminent, but the client must then be referred for independent advice immediately.

What is changing

No substantive change to Part 6 has been identified since the 2019 Standards and Regulations came into force on 25 November 2019. The April 2025 amendment was a consequential exercise adding registered Swiss lawyers and did not touch Part 6. The SRA conflicts guidance itself has not been updated since 2 March 2020.

Two live developments are worth tracking. The SRA consulted on strengthening its continuing competence approach between 22 April and 15 July 2026, proposing mandatory learning and development records kept for at least three years, a power to require specific learning where a competence concern is identified, and a rule requiring all solicitors to take part in a minimum total of three hours of discussions on professional ethics facilitated by a solicitor. One stated aim of those discussions is to develop confidence in making ethical decisions, especially where there is a conflict between different duties. No outcome had been published at the time of writing, and the target was the 2027/28 practising year, so treat it as a proposal and not a rule. If adopted, it would be the first mandatory hours requirement since CPD hours were abolished, and it would be hours of facilitated discussion rather than CPD.

Separately, the SRA review of the solicitor competence framework opened on 8 October 2026 and closes on 3 December 2026. It proposes new ethics competences including being able to prioritise ethical obligations when they come into conflict with each other. It is still open, which makes it one of the few places a compliance officer can actually influence the standard they will later be measured against.

For the wider ethical framework these rules sit within, see our overview of professional ethics, conflicts and client care for solicitors, and for the other Part 1 duty that most often produces disciplinary findings, our guide to undertakings, risk and compliance.