Rising SRA reports show why client understanding matters

Why are SRA reports rising?

The SRA’s latest data shows a significant increase in reports about potential misconduct, and the regulator also made the point that this increase is placing pressure on assessment and investigatory resources. That is not a small operational detail. It tells us that more issues are entering the system, more decisions need to be made, and more regulatory attention is being spent working out what should happen next.

The SRA also says it receives thousands of contacts each year that are not appropriate for its misconduct team. Some matters are outside its remit, while others may be service related and more suitable for the Legal Ombudsman. That matters because it shows how easily client frustration can land in the wrong place. A client may not know whether their issue is misconduct, poor service, a misunderstanding, a cost complaint, a delay, a communication failure or simply a disagreement about expectations. From the client’s point of view, they just feel something has gone wrong and they want someone to listen.

For law firms, this should be a warning sign. The earlier a misunderstanding happens, the more chance there is that it becomes something bigger later. That misunderstanding might begin with a costs agreement, a retainer, a conditional fee agreement, an engagement letter, a limitation warning, a risk notice, a settlement explanation or a decision to proceed. These are all moments where the firm may feel it has provided the information, but the client may not have properly absorbed it.

The legal sector often treats documents as proof that the firm has done its job. In some ways, that is understandable, because legal services rely on records, terms and formal instructions. But clients do not experience long documents as proof of care. They often experience them as dense information they are expected to accept before they can move forward. That is the gap i agree is trying to close through guided client understanding journeys that sit around the existing legal document rather than replacing it.

Where law firms are most exposed when clients do not understand

The biggest risk is not always the agreement itself. It is the gap between what the firm believes it has explained and what the client believes they understood. That gap becomes especially risky around fees, retainers, deductions, limitation warnings, settlement choices, cancellation rights and the scope of work. These are the points where a client is most likely to say later, I did not realise that was what I agreed to.

This is why i agree is particularly relevant for law firms that need clearer client consent and stronger SRA client care evidence. The issue is not just getting a document accepted. It is making sure the client has had the important points explained in a format they can actually engage with before they agree.

For firms handling higher risk or higher volume work, this becomes even more important. In areas such as motor finance claims where fee transparency and informed consent are under scrutiny, the firm may need to evidence that the client understood deductions, free alternatives, possible outcomes and the consequences of proceeding. A signed document alone may not feel strong enough if the client later challenges what they were told.

How can law firms reduce complaints?

No firm can prevent every complaint. Some complaints will happen because mistakes happen, some will happen because clients are unhappy with an outcome, and some will happen because expectations were never realistic in the first place. But many complaints have a common root: the client thought one thing was going to happen, while the firm believed it had already explained something different.

That gap can become dangerous very quickly. It can show up when a client asks why they are being charged a certain amount, why a matter has taken longer than expected, why a result was not guaranteed, why a deduction has been made, why a settlement was recommended or why a particular risk was not made clearer. In many cases, the firm may be able to point to the document and say the client was told. But that answer rarely builds trust. It can make the client feel blamed for not understanding legal wording.

A better approach is to design the journey so the most important points cannot easily be missed. That means highlighting key terms, explaining them in plain English, using different formats and capturing confirmation that the client engaged with the information. This is exactly the kind of issue explored in our article on how better consumer understanding can reduce disputes and complaints.

For law firms, this is not just a customer experience point. It is a professional risk point. If a client later complains, the firm needs to show more than a signed document or a copy of an email. It needs a record of what the client saw, what was explained and how the client confirmed the important points. That is why clearer agreement journeys can help reduce complaints and disputes before they become formal issues.

How can legal technology support SRA compliance?

The SRA’s 2026 data release also says its draft business plan includes proposals to improve how it uses technology and data to support quicker, more consistent decisions. That is a useful signal for the wider market because it shows that technology is becoming part of the regulatory conversation, not just part of the back office.

Legal technology should not only make firms faster. It should make legal services clearer. A lot of legal tech has focused on internal efficiency, including case management, document automation, onboarding, billing, signatures and workflow. Those things matter, but they do not always improve the client’s understanding of the decision they are making.

The next wave of legal technology should focus more on the client’s side of the screen. What does the client see? What do they hear? What do they understand? Where might they get confused? What needs repeating? Which terms carry the biggest risk? What would the firm want to evidence later if the client challenged the process?

i agree fits into that space. It is not trying to be another traditional e signature tool. It is a consent first layer for firms that need stronger evidence around understanding. For anyone comparing the difference, the e signature alternative for UK firms page explains why a signature alone is not enough for high risk or regulated journeys.

The use of voice and video consent is especially relevant here because it gives the client a more accessible way to engage with key information and gives the firm a stronger record that the explanation was not buried in a static document. This is also relevant for firms thinking about FCA and SRA compliance, where the regulatory direction is moving towards clearer information, better outcomes and stronger evidence.

What should law firms do next?

Firms do not need to rebuild their entire client journey overnight. A better starting point is to identify the moments where misunderstanding creates the highest risk. These might include client care letters where costs, scope and complaints processes are explained, conditional fee agreements where deductions and success fees need to be clear, settlement decisions where the client needs to understand risk, or retainers where the client must understand exactly what the firm is and is not doing.

High volume claims onboarding is another obvious place to start because the same explanation needs to be delivered consistently across many clients. Vulnerable client journeys should also be reviewed carefully because format, clarity, timing and accessibility may all affect whether the person can properly understand the information being presented.

The practical question is simple: if this was challenged six months from now, would the firm only have the signed document, or would it have evidence that the client understood the key points? If the answer is only the signed document, that is the weak spot.

i agree gives firms a way to strengthen that moment without throwing away their existing documents. The legal terms can stay the same, but the client journey around those terms can become much clearer. For firms that want to understand the wider benefit, the benefits of i agree page explains how better agreement journeys can support trust, compliance and evidence. For firms ready to explore fit, the next step is to speak to i agree.