SRA Continuing Competence Explained: What Solicitors Actually Need to Do

Ask a solicitor what "CPD" means and most will still describe hours: a target number to hit each year, ticked off against a course catalogue. That model hasn't described reality in England and Wales for years. Since 2016, the Solicitors Regulation Authority has run a continuing competence framework that asks something different — and, in many ways, harder — of every practising solicitor. Understanding what it actually requires matters, especially with the SRA now proposing to sharpen how compliance is checked. If your firm is building out a CPD programme for 2026-27, this is the framework it needs to satisfy.

What the SRA actually asks solicitors to do

The continuing competence requirement has four linked parts. Solicitors must maintain their competence to practise, reflect on their practice and the extent to which it meets the SRA's Statement of Solicitor Competence, identify any learning and development needs that reflection reveals, and take reasonable steps to address those needs, whether through formal courses, mentoring, shadowing or other means. Each year, solicitors confirm they've done this through a declaration made at practising certificate renewal.

Notice what's missing from that list: a number. There's no requirement to complete 16 hours, or 12, or any other fixed figure. The old prescriptive CPD scheme, with its points and mandatory hours, was replaced precisely because the SRA concluded that ticking off hours told it nothing about whether solicitors were actually competent. What matters now is whether learning is relevant, evidenced, and connected to real practice.

There's no such thing as an "SRA-approved" course

This trips up a lot of firms and training providers. The SRA does not accredit courses, does not approve providers, and does not issue any kind of "SRA-approved" or "SRA-accredited" badge. Any training claiming that status is overstating its position. What a good course can legitimately do is show how its content maps to the Statement of Solicitor Competence — the four competences covering ethics and professionalism, technical legal practice, working with clients and others, and managing yourself and your work. Firms buying CPD, and solicitors choosing it for themselves, should be looking for that mapping rather than a badge that doesn't exist.

The 2026 consultation: tighter evidence expectations on the way

In April 2026 the SRA opened a consultation, Strengthening our continuing competence approach, proposing to raise the bar on how solicitors record and evidence their learning. The proposals under consultation include clearer expectations that reflection and learning activity should be properly recorded, and a suggestion that records be retained for a set period — potentially three years — so they can be produced if the SRA asks. Any changes arising from the consultation are expected to take effect from 2027 or 2028 at the earliest. It's important to be precise here: as of now this is a consultation and a set of proposals, not a rule already in force. Firms don't need to overhaul their systems overnight, but they should treat the direction of travel as settled even if the detail isn't yet. Building a habit of recording learning properly now is far cheaper than retrofitting it once a firmer rule lands.

What the Annual Assessment tells firms about enforcement

Each year the SRA publishes an Annual Assessment of Continuing Competence, drawing on data from tens of thousands of solicitors' declarations — the 2026 assessment drew on more than 80,000 reports — plus targeted thematic reviews of specific practice areas. That data consistently shapes where the regulator looks next. Recent assessments have flagged probate, family law, landlord and tenant work, and criminal law as areas where the SRA has particular concerns about whether learning is addressing the real risks in those practice areas, and whether solicitors can evidence it when asked. If your firm has fee-earners working in any of those areas, it's a reasonable bet that continuing competence records will get more scrutiny, not less, over the next few cycles.

What this means in practice

For individual solicitors, the practical shape of compliance hasn't changed even if the evidence expectations are tightening: reflect honestly on where your practice could be stronger, choose learning that actually closes those gaps rather than whatever's easiest to book, and keep a simple record of what you did and why. For COLPs and training managers, it means building a firm-wide approach that doesn't rely on individual memory — a shared template for reflection and a central record of completed learning, mapped to the competence statement, is enough to satisfy both the current declaration and the tighter recording expectations likely to follow. Good supervision practices also play into this directly, since supervisors are often best placed to spot where a fee-earner's learning needs sit.

It's also worth connecting continuing competence to the firm's other compliance obligations rather than treating it as a standalone box-ticking exercise. A solicitor working on high-risk conveyancing files, for example, needs their AML learning to be current in exactly the way the continuing competence framework expects — reflected on, evidenced, and tied to actual risk. The same logic applies across professional ethics and client care obligations.

Does the SRA set a minimum number of CPD hours?

No. Since 2016 there has been no fixed annual hours requirement. Solicitors must reflect on their competence, identify learning needs and take action, then declare this annually — but the SRA does not prescribe a number of hours or points.

Is there such a thing as an "SRA-accredited" course?

No. The SRA does not accredit or approve individual training courses or providers. Course providers can describe how their content maps to the Statement of Solicitor Competence, but any claim of formal SRA approval or accreditation should be treated with caution.

What is changing in the SRA's approach to continuing competence?

In April 2026 the SRA launched a consultation on strengthening continuing competence, proposing clearer recording and evidencing expectations, potentially including a set retention period for records. This is a proposal under consultation, not yet a finalised rule — any changes are expected from 2027 or 2028 at the earliest.

Which practice areas is the SRA most focused on?

Recent Annual Assessments of Continuing Competence have flagged probate, family law, landlord and tenant work, and criminal law as areas of particular regulatory concern, based on analysis of solicitors' declarations and targeted reviews.

Whatever form the finalised rules take, the direction is clear: continuing competence is moving from a declaration exercise towards one the SRA expects firms to be able to evidence. Getting the habits right now — honest reflection, targeted learning, and a proper record — puts firms ahead of that shift rather than scrambling to catch up.

What the April 2026 consultation actually proposed

The consultation, Strengthening our continuing competence approach, ran from 22 April 2026 to 15 July 2026. It is closed and the SRA has not published a decision. Any rule change also needs Legal Services Board approval, so nothing below is law yet — but the proposals are specific enough to prepare for, and all three would take effect from the 2027/28 practising year.

1. A record you have to keep, and keep for three years

Recording your learning is currently not a rule at all; the SRA offers an optional template and nothing more. The proposal makes a record mandatory, and it has to show three things: that you considered all aspects of your role and work, how you identified your development needs, and how you addressed them. If you identified no needs, the record must say why. Evidence would be kept for at least three years, firms may keep it longer, and the form is not prescribed. The practising certificate declaration would be strengthened to cover all of this.

Uploading records to SRA systems is not proposed for now, though the SRA says it remains under review.

2. Three hours of facilitated ethics discussion, every year

This is the proposal with real operational consequences, and it is prescriptive in a way the rest of the regime is not:

• A minimum of three hours of facilitated group discussion on professional ethics each year.
• Groups of three to twelve people, including the facilitator. Non-solicitor staff and other legal professionals may take part.
• The facilitator must be a solicitor holding a current practising certificate or on the roll, with at least three years’ practice since admission and no regulatory or disciplinary record with the SRA.
• It cannot be a lecture. The format must require active engagement. Content is not prescribed beyond stated objectives, and the SRA would publish optional case studies.
• Records: participants log dates, facilitator names and topics; facilitators log attendees and confirm attendance to the SRA on request.
• First declaration in 2028, certifying participation at practising certificate renewal.

The SRA considered and rejected a prescribed online ethics course. Whether it becomes mandatory for aspiring solicitors is still open.

3. A power to require specific learning

A new rule would let the SRA require some or all solicitors to complete named learning where it identifies a competence concern, with the same power extending to non-authorised staff in regulated organisations. The illustrative deadlines in the consultation are two and three months. Before using it the SRA would publish an impact assessment and an evidence-based rationale.

Why the current regime already has teeth

It is easy to read “no minimum hours” as “no enforcement”. In 2024 the SRA imposed practice conditions on ten solicitors who did not confirm they were maintaining their competence. The declaration is a regulatory statement, not an administrative tick, and the consequence of making it carelessly is a condition on your ability to practise.

What to do before 2027/28

Two things are worth starting now rather than when the rules land. Keep a record this year in the shape the proposal describes — what you considered, how you identified needs, how you addressed them, and your reasons if you found none — because a habit is easier to acquire than a backdated file. And if you are in a firm, work out who could facilitate an ethics discussion: the three-year, clean-record requirement rules out more people than firms expect, and a group of three to twelve means a large firm needs several facilitators rather than one.

For the comparison next door, the Law Society of Ireland’s 25-hour cycle takes the opposite approach — prescribed hours and categories rather than reflective self-assessment. The BSB regime for barristers sits between the two. And because ethics and AML are where most enforcement actually arises, AML training requirements for solicitors covers the one area where prescribed training already applies.