The respondent intervened in the claimant’s legal practice. He claimed a duty on the Law Society to administer his former practice in such a way as to maximize recovery of outstanding fees and disbursements.
Held: The Law Society had no duty to pursue such matters. Its duties could be satisfied by allowing him supervised access to the files. The Society’s duty lay first to the solicitor’s clients. The Society on intervening took the right to retain not only sums within the practice, but also sums received in respect of work undertaken up to the date of the intervention, but unpaid at the time.
Justice Lightman
Times 16-Jan-2002, Gazette 10-Jan-2002
Solicitors Act 1974
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Sritharan v Law Society CA 27-Apr-2005
The Law Society had intervened in the applicant’s legal practice as a solicitor, and his practising certificate had been automatically suspended. He applied to the court to remove the suspension.
Held: The powers exercised were statutory. The . .
Approved – Holder v Law Society ChD 25-Jul-2002
The applicant solicitors’ practice had been subject to an intervention by the respondent. He claimed that by intervening in his practice, his human right to enjoy his possessions without interference had been infringed.
Held: The power of . .
Cited – Sheikh v The Law Society ChD 1-Jul-2005
The claimant challenged the intervention by the Law Society in her solicitors practice.
Held: Though there were some breaches of the solicitors’ accounts rules there was insufficient basis for the Society to have behaved in the way it had and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Legal Professions
Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.167404
