As we reported last week when the SRA takes on its Legal Services Act powers to conduct disciplinary matters itself – for lesser offences worth a maximum fine of £2,000 - it is going to do so using the civil standard of proof.

That means that, unlike in proceedings before the SDT, the SRA will only need to prove that the offence occurred ‘on the balance of probabilities’ rather than ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.

Solicitors will not be forced to go along with this. They will still have the option of choosing to have their alleged offence dealt with by the SDT, with its higher proof threshold.

Why would anyone choose to have their case heard by the SRA then?

The simple answer is: cash.

There is a real issue at the moment with the cost of proceedings before the SDT.

Where a solicitor contests the charges and is found guilty, the costs awarded against him can often be much greater than the actual fine issued. The SRA’s proceedings will be far cheaper, so if the solicitor does lose, at least it won’t cost as much.

But still, a lot of solicitors will be riled by the notion that their professional reputation could be seriously harmed on the basis that they were more likely to have committed an offence than not. Is this fair?

The SRA points out that there is a ‘strong trend’ towards the civil standard of proof in other sectors. It is applied in police misconduct cases, for example, and cases heard before the Financial Services and Markets Tribunal.

Why should solicitors be any different, it would argue, and perhaps it has a point.

The SRA’s civil standard will not be applied to offences where dishonesty is alleged – which really could be the ruin of their professional reputation – because the SRA’s policy is always to refer these to the SDT.

But there is one aspect of all this which makes something of a mockery of the SRA’s proposals, through no fault of the regulator itself.

Solicitors will be able to appeal their decision under SRA proceedings, and the appeal will be heard by the SDT. The SRA tried to persuade the SDT to maintain consistency by applying the civil proof standard, but so far it has refused, and shows no sign of budging.

So it seems for solicitors facing lesser offences, the course of action is clear.

In the first instance, save costs by having the case heard by the SRA. If things go badly, hop along to the SDT where the charges might be a bit more difficult to prove.

Although, of course, the best method is not to get yourself into trouble with the regulator in the first place.