Rising SRA reports show why client understanding matters

When the SRA published its latest data on rising misconduct reports and investigations, it would have been easy to read it as a story purely about misconduct. That is obviously part of it, and serious misconduct should always be treated seriously, but I think there is a wider issue sitting underneath the numbers. The legal sector is under growing pressure from clients, regulators, complaints bodies and the public, and not every issue starts because someone has acted dishonestly or deliberately done something wrong.

A lot of problems start much earlier in the client journey. They start when a client does not properly understand what is happening, what they are agreeing to, what it might cost, what the risks are, or what their next step actually means. By the time that confusion becomes frustration, the issue can already be on its way to becoming a complaint, a report, a dispute or a reputational problem for the firm.

The SRA says it reviewed 8,955 reports about potential misconduct in the six months to the end of April 2026, which was 58% more than the same period two years earlier. It also said 1,322 reports were escalated for formal investigation in the same six month period. You can read the SRA release here: SRA data on rising reports and investigations.

Those numbers matter, but the question for law firms should not only be about what happens after a report is made. The more useful question is what could be done earlier to prevent avoidable confusion from escalating in the first place. If a client misunderstands a cost, a deduction, a risk, a limitation, a likely outcome or the scope of work, the firm may later be able to point to the document and say the information was included. But that is not the same as being able to show the client genuinely understood it.

That is where client understanding becomes more than a nice extra. It becomes part of risk management, client care, trust and evidence. i agree helps firms show that important information was not just sent to a client, but explained in a way they could engage with. A PDF in an inbox proves delivery. A signed document proves acceptance. Neither automatically proves that the client understood the key points before agreeing.

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.

Why client understanding matters for law firms

Client understanding is not just about making things easier to read. It is about making sure the client is in a position to make an informed decision before they agree. That distinction is important because disclosure and understanding are not the same thing. A firm can disclose a cost, a risk or a limitation in writing, but that does not necessarily mean the client has understood its practical effect.

The SRA Code of Conduct expects solicitors to give clients information in a way they can understand and to make sure clients are in a position to make informed decisions about the services they need, how their matter will be handled and the options available to them. That should make firms think beyond simply sending information. The focus should be on the client’s position after receiving it. Did they understand the costs? Did they understand the risks? Did they understand what happens next? Did they understand what the firm will and will not do?

This is where a lot of traditional processes start to look weak. A long client care letter may include the right information, but that does not mean the client understood it. A signature may show the client accepted the document, but it does not show they engaged with the important parts. The problem is not that client care letters are useless. They are clearly important. The problem is that they are often expected to do too much on their own.

i agree is built around this exact problem. It turns important agreement information into a clearer journey using plain English summaries, audio, video and active confirmation. If you want the practical product view, this is covered in more detail on how i agree works. The aim is not to remove legal documents or water down proper legal terms. The aim is to stop pretending that sending a legal document is the same as helping a client understand 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.

Do client care letters prove understanding?

Client care letters are an important part of the relationship between a law firm and a client. They set expectations, explain responsibilities, outline costs and create a formal record of the service being provided. But they also carry a problem that everyone in the sector knows about. Many clients do not read them properly, and even when they do, they may not fully understand the parts that matter most.

This is where the difference between disclosure and understanding becomes important. A firm can disclose information in a legally correct way, but that does not always mean the client understood the practical effect of it. That is why the question is moving beyond whether a document was sent or signed, and towards whether the client was genuinely helped to understand the key terms before accepting them.

This is covered in more detail in our guide on informed consent and why understanding needs to go beyond signatures. It is also why firms should be cautious about relying too heavily on signed engagement letters, especially where complex fees, deductions or risks are involved. Our article on why signatures fail as proof of real understanding explains this wider problem in more detail.

Legal wording can be accurate and still be difficult for an everyday client to process. Costs information can be included and still not be clear. Risks can be disclosed and still not feel real to the person making the decision. This is especially important where the client is under pressure, worried about the outcome or unfamiliar with legal services. In those situations, a clearer explanation layer can make the difference between passive acceptance and genuine understanding.

That is why behavioural science and contract comprehension should matter to law firms. People often understand better when information is broken down, repeated, spoken, shown visually and confirmed actively. A client care letter should remain the legal foundation, but it should not be expected to carry the whole burden of client understanding on its own.

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.

What is evidence of client understanding?

Evidence of client understanding should be more than a tick box. A tick box usually proves that someone clicked something. A signature usually proves that someone accepted something. Neither proves much about what happened in the client’s mind before that moment. If a client later says they did not understand a deduction, a cost, a risk or the scope of the work, the firm needs more than a signed page if it wants to show the client journey properly.

Better evidence would show what information was presented to the client, when the client saw or heard it, which key points were explained in plain English, whether the client had to actively confirm important terms, whether the client used audio or video support and what audit trail exists if the decision is challenged later.

This is where contract transparency and consent audit trails become important. A stronger audit trail helps a firm show the process behind the decision, not just the final acceptance. If a client later says they did not realise what they were agreeing to, the firm should be able to show how the information was explained and how the client engaged with it.

This is also where voice and video consent can add value. It gives clients a more accessible way to engage with key information and gives firms a more useful record than a silent click or basic e signature. That matters when the firm needs to show that important points were not hidden inside a long document.

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.

Why this is about trust, not just compliance

The easy way to frame this topic is compliance. That makes sense because the SRA data is regulatory, and law firms naturally think in terms of risk. But the bigger issue is trust. Clients do not want to feel trapped by documents they did not understand. They do not want to discover important costs, exclusions or risks after the event. They do not want to feel like the firm’s answer to confusion is simply that they signed the paperwork.

That response may be legally useful in some situations, but it is rarely good for the relationship. Trust is built when clients feel that the firm wanted them to understand before they agreed. That is different from giving them a document and leaving them to work it out. It is also different from using legal language as a shield when the client later says they were confused.

This is why i agree is especially relevant for law firms. The opportunity is not just to reduce risk. It is to create a better client experience at the exact point where misunderstanding often begins. It also matters in high volume or claims based environments where a large number of clients may be entering similar agreements and the firm needs consistency across every client journey.

In areas like motor finance claims, for example, firms need to be especially careful that clients understand fees, deductions, risks, likely timelines and what happens if the claim succeeds or fails. The same thinking applies to financial services, where customer understanding has already become a major regulatory theme. Legal services may use different rules and language, but the direction of travel feels similar: firms need clearer communication and better evidence that the person understood what mattered.

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.

Why this is not another e signature problem

It would be easy to see this as a signature problem, but that misses the point. The question is not whether a client can sign something online. The question is whether the firm can show that the client understood the important parts before they agreed. Traditional e signature tools help with execution, but they do not usually solve the deeper issue of client comprehension.

That is why i agree should be seen as an e signature alternative for firms that need proof of understanding, not just proof of acceptance. It sits around the agreement process and helps turn key terms into a clearer client journey using plain English, video, voice and a stronger audit trail.

For firms comparing options, the important question is not simply can this tool get the document signed? A better question is can this process help us prove that the client understood what mattered? That is the difference between a basic signing workflow and a proper informed consent journey.

References and useful links

Internal links

• How i agree works : explains the guided consent journey, plain English summaries, voice confirmation and audit trail.
• Benefits of i agree : useful for firms looking at trust, compliance, client experience and evidence.
• E signature alternative UK : explains why firms may need more than a traditional electronic signature.
• Voice and video consent in the UK : supports the point that agreement journeys can be more active and accessible.
• FCA and SRA compliance : connects informed consent, client understanding and regulatory expectations.
• Behavioural science and contract comprehension : explains why people need more than static legal documents to understand important terms.
• Consumer understanding and complaints : supports the link between clearer communication and fewer disputes.
• Informed consent beyond signatures : explains why acceptance alone is not the same as understanding.
• Why signatures fail : useful background on the limits of signatures as evidence.
• Reduce complaints and disputes : explains how clearer agreement journeys can reduce avoidable conflict.
• Contract transparency and audit trails : explains the value of recording what the client saw, heard and confirmed.
• i agree for law firms : shows how the platform applies to legal services and client care.
• Motor finance claims and informed consent : relevant for high volume claims where client understanding is under scrutiny.
• i agree for financial services : relevant for regulated firms focused on customer understanding.
• Our principles : explains the thinking behind clearer, more human agreement journeys.
• Contact i agree : for firms that want to explore better evidence of client understanding.

External links

• SRA data on rising reports and investigations : the main SRA release showing increased reports and formal investigations in 2026.
• SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors : includes duties around giving clients information in a way they can understand.
• SRA Transparency Rules : sets out requirements around costs, complaints information and regulatory information.
• Legal Ombudsman annual complaints data and insight : useful context on legal complaints and the need to prevent issues earlier.
• Legal Ombudsman 2025/26 quarter 1 complaints data : includes insight on complaint themes such as poor communication and delay.