Pine v Law Society (1): Admn 13 Dec 2000

The court considered the independence of the Law Society’s disciplinary tribunal: ‘Standing back, and bearing in mind the statutory scheme for the Disciplinary Tribunal, I see no reason to doubt its independence or impartiality. It is independent of the Law Society. There is no indication that the Law Society can influence its decisions, except in the sense of making submissions to the Tribunal as a party before the Tribunal. No evidence or suggestion has been made that the particular Tribunal demonstrated any partiality in any way. In my judgment, the submission that the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal does not meet the test of being an independent and impartial tribunal is not made out. I turn to the question of legal representation, which is the appellant’s main point. Returning to Article 6, he accepts, and authority confirms, that what was in question here was the determination of his civil rights and obligations, not of any criminal charge against him. It follows, therefore, that Article 6(3), which requires in certain circumstances legal representation in criminal cases, does not apply.’

Judges:

Crane J, Lord Wool,f Lord Chief Justice and Rafferty J

Citations:

Unreported, 13 December 2000

Cited by:

See alsoPine v Law Society CA 20-Feb-2002
The solicitor had succeeded in his challenge to the respondent’s disciplinary procedures, and the Society now accepted its liability to pay his costs, but asserted that there must be a set-off for that sum against sums it said were otherwise due to . .
See AlsoPine v Law Society CA 20-Feb-2002
The applicant was a solicitor. The Respondent intervened in his practice, and a solicitor agent took it over. The agent submitted its accounts for payment by the Society and the applicant, who then sought to challenge the accounts under the Act. The . .
CitedHolder v The Law Society Admn 26-Jul-2005
The applicant challenged the independence of the respondent’s disciplinary tribunal.
Held: The claim failed: ‘the nature of the Tribunal is entirely adequately independent and impartial for the purposes for which it is constituted. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.230902