The Society appealed against an order quashing the striking-off of the solicitor.
Held: Bolton was still the leading case though the solicitor must be given an opportunity for a fair trial. Though it was not necessary to show a very strong case before overturning a decision of a professional tribunal, the court must give it approriate respect. Here the tribunal had made no error of law, and had an evidential basis for its conclusions. The High Court had been wrong to interfere with the decision.
There exists a ‘very small residual category where striking off is not appropriate’ for dishonesty in a solicitor.
Jackson LJ said: ‘It is now an overstatement to say that ‘a very strong case’ is required before the court will interfere with the sentence imposed by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. The correct analysis is that the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal comprises an expert and informed tribunal, which is particularly well placed in any case to assess what measures are required to deal with defaulting solicitors and to protect the public interest. Absent any error of law, the High Court must pay considerable respect to the sentencing decisions of the tribunal. Nevertheless if the High Court, despite paying such respect, is satisfied that the sentencing decision was clearly inappropriate, then the court will interfere.’
Judges:
Sir Mark Potter, President, Lady Justice Arden and Lord Justice Jackson
Citations:
[2008] EWCA Civ 1285, Times 15-Jan-2009, [2009] 2 All ER 437, [2009] 1 WLR 1286
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Bolton v The Law Society CA 8-Dec-1993
The solicitor who had been admitted to the Roll for two years had disbursed clients money to relatives, as part of the conveyance of property without adequate security but in the expectation that the money would be repaid. The Tribunal found that . .
Cited by:
Cited – Solicitors Regulation Authority v Dennison Admn 22-Feb-2011
The Authority appealed against the sentence imposed on the respondent by the Soicitoirs Discipinary Tribunal. He had been found to have taken undisclosed referral fees in personal injury litigation giving rise to conflicts of interest and to have . .
Cited – Harris v The Solicitors Regulation Authority Admn 28-Jun-2011
The solicitor appealed against findings and orders regarding allegations of having failed to disclose to clients referral fees paid by him to third parties, and of having given misleading fees information.
Held: The appellant had admitted . .
Cited – Bass and Another v Solicitors Regulation Authority Admn 18-Jul-2012
The appellants challenged the decision of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal finding them in breach of the 1998 Rules in that they had failed to prevent a former partner making unauthorised, if small, withdrawals of residual balances from client . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Legal Professions, Human Rights
Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.278249