A notice of the Law Society’s suspicion of dishonesty founding an intervention in a solicitor’s practice, did not need to particularise the acts suspected. Sedley LJ said: ‘it is by common consent a matter for the court’s judgment [on an application under paragraph 6(4) of schedule 1] (I prefer not to use the word discretion in this context) whether it should direct withdrawal – a judgment which may be significantly, though not conclusively, affected by the Law Society’s own view of the facts, since the view taken by the professional body charged with the regulation of solicitors’ practices is in itself a relevant evidential factor to which the judge not only can but must have regard.’
Judges:
Sedley LJ
Citations:
Gazette 25-Oct-1995, Times 20-Oct-1995, [1995] 8 Admn LR 105
Statutes:
Solicitors Act 1974 Sch I Part II para 6
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Holder v Law Society CA 24-Jan-2003
The Society had intervened in the applicant’s legal practice. He complained that the intervention was disproportionate, and by removing his right to enjoyment of his possession, infringed his human rights. The Society appealed the finding that an . .
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 . .
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: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.80823
