The Authority appealed aganst atwo year sysupension imposed on the respondent solicitor by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, saying that it was too light. He had been sentenced to imprisonment after being found guilty, having had somebody else agree to take responsibility and points for his speeding offence.
Held: The Tribunal had not misundertood the extent of the respondent’s dishonesty: ‘ it is not possible when assessing exceptional circumstances simply to pick off the individual features of the case. It is necessary, as the tribunal did, to record and stand back from all of those many factors, putting first and foremost in the assessment of whether or not there are exceptional circumstances the particular conclusions that had been reached about the act of dishonesty itself. The fact that many solicitors may be able to produce testimonials and may immediately confess the dishonest behaviour is certainly relevant to the determination of whether or not it is an exceptional case, but is not a factor that is likely to attract very substantial weight. Of far greater weight would be the extent of the dishonesty and the impact of that dishonesty both on the character of the particular solicitor concerned but, most importantly, on the wider reputation of the profession and how it impinges on the public’s perception of the profession as a whole.’
Dove J
[2015] EWHC 2572 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Legal Professions
Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.552363