Continuing competence has returned to the regulatory agenda

When the SRA introduced its continuing competence framework in 2016, the emphasis moved away from mandatory hours-based continuing professional development and towards individual responsibility for maintaining competence.

The principle was straightforward: solicitors should reflect on their practice, identify development needs, undertake appropriate learning and maintain records that demonstrate ongoing competence.

For many firms, however, the practical implementation of this model has varied significantly. Some embedded structured competence processes into supervision, appraisal and learning systems. Others relied largely on annual declarations and/or individual judgement.

that The SRA is now taking a closer look at how continuing competence operates in practice and whether existing arrangements provide sufficient assuranceThis renewed attention has important implications for firms of all sizes.

Why is the SRA revisiting continuing competence?

Several factors appear to be driving increased regulatory interest.

The legal profession continues to experience rapid change, including:

• evolving legal and regulatory requirements
• technological transformation
• increased client expectations
• growing complexity of legal services
• changing models of supervision and hybrid working

Against this backdrop, regulators are increasingly focused on how competence is maintained throughout a solicitor’s career rather than simply at the point of qualification.

The question is no longer whether individuals have completed learning activities. Instead, the focus is shifting towards whether organisations can demonstrate that competence is being actively supported, monitored and maintained.

This represents a subtle but significant change in emphasis.

Moving beyond training activity

Historically, many firms viewed competence through a learning and development lens.

Typical questions may have been:

• What training has been delivered?
• Who attended?
• How many learning hours were completed?

While these metrics remain useful, they do not necessarily demonstrate competence.

Attendance at training does not automatically translate into improved professional performance. Nor does participation alone provide assurance that individuals can apply knowledge effectively within their role.

The emerging regulatory conversation suggests a greater focus on outcomes rather than activity.

In practice, this means firms may need to consider:

• how competence is assessed
• how development needs are identified
• how supervision supports ongoing growth
• how evidence of competence is recorded
• how risks relating to competence are managed

Competence is increasingly becoming a firm issue

One of the most important developments is the growing recognition that competence is not solely an individual responsibility.

Individuals remain responsible for maintaining their professional standards. However, firms create the environment in which competence is developed, supported and monitored.

This places competence within a broader context that includes:

• supervision arrangements
• performance management processes
• learning and development systems
• governance structures
• risk management frameworks

As a result, competence is increasingly being viewed as an organisational capability issue rather than simply a training issue.

Firms that treat competence as part of their governance framework may be better positioned to respond to future regulatory expectations.

What should firms be considering now?

Although consultation outcomes and future requirements will continue to develop, firms do not need to wait before reviewing their current arrangements.

Useful questions include:

How is competence currently evidenced?

Many firms hold extensive training records but relatively little evidence demonstrating how learning translates into competent practice.

Are reflective processes genuinely effective?

Reflective practice is a cornerstone of the continuing competence model. Firms should consider whether reflection is structured, documented and meaningful.

How well does supervision support competence?

Supervisors often play a critical role in identifying development needs, providing feedback and supporting professional growth.

Can competence risks be identified early?

Firms increasingly need mechanisms that identify capability gaps before they become performance, client service or regulatory issues.

Key takeaways

Competence Governance Series – CG001

• The SRA has renewed its focus on continuing competence.
• Regulatory attention appears to be moving beyond training activity towards evidence of competence.
• Firms may face greater expectations around competence assurance and oversight.
• Competence is increasingly being viewed as an organisational issue, not solely an individual responsibility.
• Supervision, development planning and evidence gathering are becoming more important.
• Early review of competence arrangements may help firms prepare for future changes.

Conclusion

The SRA’s renewed interest in continuing competence is more than a regulatory update. It reflects a broader shift in how professional competence is understood and evidenced within legal practice.

For firms, the key message is that competence can no longer be viewed solely through the lens of training delivery. The emerging focus is on assurance, evidence and organisational responsibility.

Those organisations that begin reviewing their competence arrangements now are likely to be better prepared for future regulatory expectations and better positioned to support sustainable professional performance.

Next Steps

If your firm is reviewing how competence is supported, evidenced or governed, now may be an appropriate time to assess whether existing arrangements provide the level of assurance that future regulatory expectations may require.

Is this a link to the other articles in the series?