The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal in the U.K. has lowered the standard of proof required to prove lawyer misconduct in proceedings, with some industry heavyweights expressing concern at the change.

The tribunal has adopted the civil standard of proof for cases brought by the Solicitors Regulation Authority , including professional misconduct proceedings. This now means prosecutors need to prove misconduct on the balance of probabilities—that it is more likely that it happened than did not.

Previously, the SDT used the criminal standard of proof of “beyond reasonable doubt”.

The Legal Services Board approved the change last month, and it will take effect in November.

High-profile employment partner Ronnie Fox of Fox & Partners told Law.com affiliate Legal Week: “It seems to me quite wrong that solicitors should risk being struck off because on the balance of probabilities the SDT finds against them.

“It is worth asking why the different standards apply in criminal and civil proceedings. The answer is the serious consequence of a criminal conviction. I have known lives shattered by an adverse finding of the SDT. A solicitor’s professional life may be ended; their family may be left destitute.”

Greenberg Traurig global white-collar criminal defense co-head Barry Vitou told Legal Week: “This is a significant reduction in the legal standard. The argument raised in the consultation process that ‘…[sanctions] should only be imposed… when the individual has actually done something [wrong], rather than probably done something or… omitted to do something’ fell on deaf ears.”

He added: “It is critical that the reduction in the standard does not result in miscarriages of justice.”

Fox warned that such changes could add further burdens to the industry.

He added: “At one time it was the duty of a solicitor to encourage young people to join the legal profession. Today, I encourage young people to think long and hard about the many downsides of professional practice – especially the ever-increasing burden of professional regulation – before deciding to take up a career in the law.”

The Law Society told Legal Week in a statement: “There remains a concern that lowering the standard of proof may increase the likelihood of referrals to the SDT of ‘weaker’ cases, which would previously and more appropriately have been dispensed by the regulator using its own powers. We trust the tribunal will monitor referrals to ensure best use of its resources and powers.”

Previously, the Law Society had expressed “concern” for its members following the SDT’s application to shift standards.