The claimant complained at the disciplinary procedures of the Law Society.
Held: A failure to hold a disciplinary hearing in public was not an infringement of the claimant’s human rights. The two questions of whether there had been a determination of articlce 6 rights, and then whether there had been an infringement of them must not be separated artifiicially. Despite the professional consequences, the the decision to issue a reprimand did not become a determination of his civil rights.
Judges:
Lord Justice Clarke Lord Justice Kennedy Lord Justice Jacob
Citations:
[2004] EWCA Civ 167, Times 01-Apr-2004, Gazette 01-Apr-2004
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Law Society ex parte Singh and Choudry (A Firm) QBD 1-Apr-1994
The disciplinary jurisdiction of the Law Society is not dependent on prejudice having been shown to have affected any client. The jurisdiction is disciplinary in nature, its intention being to maintain standards in the profession. . .
Cited – Pine v Law Society CA 25-Oct-2001
The applicant said the procedure under which he was struck from the roll of solicitors was unfair. There was no provision for legal advice or representation, and given the nature and severity of the allegations and consequences, the trial was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Legal Professions, Human Rights
Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.193884