Jamie Salvidge
Solicitor
356813

Decision - Sanction

Outcome: Rebuke

Outcome date: 23 June 2026

Published date: 25 June 2026

Firm details

No detail provided:

Outcome details

This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

Decision details

1. Agreed outcome

1.1 Mr Jamie Salvidge ('Mr Salvidge'), a solicitor and former managing director at SO Legal ('the Firm'), agrees to the following outcome to the investigation of his conduct by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA):

1.  he is rebuked
2. to the publication of this agreement
3. he will pay the costs of the investigation of £300.

2. Summary of Facts

2.1 On 23 September 2023, Sussex Police were called to a multi‑storey car park following concerns raised by security staff that Mr Salvidge was intoxicated and attempting to drive away. Officers located him in a stationary vehicle and observed signs of intoxication, including slurred speech, unsteady balance and glazed eyes. He provided a roadside breath sample which recorded a reading of 88 micrograms of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath, significantly above the legal limit.

2.2 Mr Salvidge was arrested on suspicion of driving with excess alcohol and taken to Brighton Custody Suite. In custody, he was required to provide evidential specimens of breath using an approved device. Prior to the procedure, he requested to use the toilet and drank water, resulting in a mandatory waiting period of 20 minutes.

2.3 When officers resumed the procedure, Mr Salvidge refused to provide a specimen despite being warned that failure to do so without reasonable excuse is a criminal offence. No medical or other reasonable excuse was identified.

2.4 He was subsequently charged with failing to provide a specimen for analysis and, on 16 November 2023, pleaded guilty at Brighton Magistrates' Court. He was disqualified from driving for 22 months (with provision for reduction on completion of a rehabilitation course), fined £2,000, and ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £800 and costs of £85.

2.5 Mr Salvidge reported the matter to the SRA on 11 December 2023.

3. Admissions

3.1 Mr Salvidge makes the following admissions which the SRA accepts:

that by being convicted of failing to provide a specimen of breath for analysis when lawfully required to do so, he breached

Principle 1 of the SRA Principles 2019, which says:

'You act in a way that upholds the constitutional principle of the rule of law and the proper administration of justice' and

Principle 2 of the SRA Principles 2019, which says:

'You act in a way that upholds public trust and confidence in the solicitors' profession and in legal services provided by authorised persons'.

4. Why a written rebuke is an appropriate outcome

4.1 The SRA's Enforcement Strategy sets out its approach to the use of its enforcement powers where there has been a failure to meet its standards or requirements.

4.2 When considering the appropriate sanctions and controls in this matter, the SRA has taken into account the admissions made by Mr Salvidge and the following mitigation which he has put forward:

1. this was an isolated incident, and he has no previous criminal convictions or relevant regulatory history
2. he pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity, has complied with the sentence imposed by the court, and completed a drink‑driver rehabilitation course
3. he has demonstrated insight and remorse, has reflected on his behaviour..

4.3 The SRA considers that a written rebuke is the appropriate outcome because:

1. Mr Salvidge was convicted of failing to provide a specimen of breath when lawfully required to do so, which interfered with a police investigation and therefore undermined the proper administration of justice
2. the conduct resulted in a significant criminal sanction, including a 22‑month disqualification from driving
3. he was directly responsible for his conduct.

5. Publication

5.1 The SRA considers it appropriate that this agreement is published in the interests of transparency in the regulatory and disciplinary process. Mr Salvidge agrees to the publication of this agreement.

6. Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement

6.1 Mr Salvidge agrees that he will not deny the admissions made in this agreement or act in any way which is inconsistent with it.

6.2 If Mr Salvidge denies the admissions, or acts in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement, the conduct which is subject to this agreement may be considered further by the SRA. That may result in a disciplinary outcome or a referral to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal on the original facts and allegations.

6.3 Denying the admissions made or acting in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement may also constitute a separate breach of principles 2 and 5 of the Principles and paragraph 7.3 of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs.

7. Costs

7.1 Mr Salvidge agrees to pay the costs of the SRA's investigation in the sum of £300 Such costs are due within 28 days of a statement of costs due being issued by the SRA.